Debated in Parliament on 29 Nov 2022.
Resumption of Debate on Question [28 November 2022], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Social and Family Development].
Question again proposed.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Mr Speaker, as Members of this House executing our duties in Parliament, we simultaneously hold three distinct identities. We are, first and foremost, representatives of the people that voted for us. In my view, this is our utmost responsibility: to properly capture and reflect the views of our constituents. Second, we are members of a political party, who were likewise elected to formulate policies for our nation. For the Workers’ Party, our mandate – as loyal opposition – is to provide alternative views and constructive critique of the ruling party’s ideas and proposals. And third, we are of course individuals who carry our own beliefs and convictions.
Rarely is there confluence in these three identities, which results in us having to make a reasonable effort at balancing between different preferences and exercising compromise. But this is not necessarily as difficult as it sounds; for esoteric bills, our electorate often expects us to do our homework and choose what is in the best interests of the country at large. Hence, they may not hew to strongly-held views of their own. At other times, there are bipartisan consensus on how best to proceed and so our interventions in Parliament are limited to flagging points of concern, but the Workers’ Party nevertheless votes alongside the ruling party.
In a matter such as the repeal of section 377A and the attendant proposed constitutional amendments, however, it would appear that there is not only an intractable divide between the different interests that we represent, but our own personal convictions may play a role in the choices we are forced in make.
In my speech, I wish to explain why I believe that these disparate views can be reconciled and how this leads me to vote the way that I will.
In the many letters written to me by the residents of Sengkang, those that have expressed their concern over the repeal of 377A have, almost uniformly, cited their reservation over how such a repeal would open the floodgates to revisions to the traditionalist interpretation of marriage.
This concern has not only been limited to those who are more religiously inclined. I have spoken to residents who would otherwise hold no strong views on 377A, nevertheless underscore their wish that the heterosexual definition of marriage be, somehow, protected.
To be clear, this is a prospective fear: one based on how the repeal of 377A is a slippery slope; once the law is removed, the floodgates are open and all manner of permissive laws become possible.
In contrast, 377A is currently on the books and consenting relations between two men is currently a crime. This is no longer prospective, but real. In principle, a man engaged in same-sex sexual relations could be jailed, if the strict letter of the law were to be followed.
The repeal decision is thus a trade-off between the removal of a tangible, actual threat of imprisonment, versus a perceived, potential concern over how repeal would undermine marriage. It seems clear to me that there is not, and cannot, be a genuine equivalence between the two.
The usual pushback against claims that 377A constitutes an actual violation of the law, is that 377A is not enforced and – on the basis of court judgments – will not be, unless otherwise instructed by the Attorney-General. This suggests that the Article is merely a relic, one that has no bite and hence, any fear is similarly ephemeral. Why not the existing status quo, then?
It is true that the Courts have previously ruled that 377A would not be prosecuted. Even so, sexual relations between men remains, on the books, an arrestable offence. Think about what this means when the status of rule of law in our country if we insist on instituting laws that simultaneously do not matter in practice. How many more de jure issues also would not matter, de facto? If we wish to make a slippery slope argument, this strikes me as a far slipperier one.
Furthermore, we should recognise that even an unenforced law can have effects on individuals and society.
Think of the symbolism behind what a law, any law, implies. Suppose, for a moment, there was a law prohibiting relationships between individuals of different races, and further suppose that a similar legal precedent and political compromise exists, in that those who are in such a miscegenated relationship are assured that they will never be prosecuted. It is a hypothetical but is it fair to expect those who are in a mixed-race relationship to accept the assurance that such a sword of Damocles hanging over their relationship does not really mean anything?
To take the argument further, should we expect that individuals will feel that they are a fair and equal part of society, when society has deigned it permissible to have a law that, even while unenforced, nevertheless explicitly condemns their behaviour? Can we expect such individuals to truly feel that they are accepted as a part of Singaporean society, when Singaporean law declares them to be criminals?
Some would suggest that Singapore is different. We are an Eastern society, with different cultural mores and practices. They argue that a repeal of 377A amounts to bringing in the polarisation and cultural wars – so prevalent in the seemingly dysfunctional democracies of the West – back home.
I agree that Singapore is different. Our cultural norms skew toward greater social conservatism and society stresses compromise for the sake of harmony, rather than the contentious and often raucous activism favoured by civil society and activism in the West.
But an untenable status quo, however entrenched, does not imply that all is well under the surface. For those who keenly feel the yoke of discrimination, suggesting that we should keep things the way that they have always been – simply because that is how it has always been – is more than simply benign neglect. It is an insult to their plight, to the burden that they have been bearing, perhaps silently, until now. It is like telling a prisoner that their desire for freedom is an attempt to stir up unrest while they are in jail.
As a man attracted to the opposite sex, I can never fully empathise what it means to develop feelings for someone of the same gender. But when I was a hot-blooded teenager, I had a dear friend, who turned out to be gay, explain to me what his world was like. The analogy has stayed with me ever since. Just imagine, he said, if the way you feel about women – the strong, unrelenting attraction when you first meet, the wish to share one’s most innermost thoughts and feelings with them, the deep desire to be with that person for the rest of your life – imagine if all that was not the natural order of things. Imagine that society deemed my attraction to women as not just abhorrent, but also judged intimate expressions of my love to be criminal.
This is not too far from other historical legacies where the law deemed certain forms of love to be illegal. As recently as the 1960s, interracial relationships were limited in some form in as many as 31 US states, as it was in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. While I am not equating the two, my point is that my own relationship as well as that of my parents – which occurred between two different ethnicities – would have fallen afoul of the law.
The usual retort to such scenarios is that it is contrived; humans are not animals and, after all, we can always exercise self-restraint. Some argue that because same-sex attraction is ultimately psychological, it can be overturned, with intervention and counselling. Perhaps. But I am not here to question the natural biological order which I respect. After all, it is a physiological reality that asexual reproduction among mammals is impossible. And hence, the male-female pairing is necessary to ensure the continuation of these species. Even so, for certain individuals, such attractions are deeply embedded in what may be regarded as innate biologically-led behaviour.
For these reasons, I support the repeal of the discriminatory law that is 377A.
Even so, I also cannot really ignore how many in our Asian society continue to equate marriage and partnership to one between a man and a woman. This view is held not only those who are religious – by which I mean not just by groups that have been more vocal about traditional marriage, such as evangelical Christians and Muslims – but, based on my conversations with residents in Sengkang and beyond, also those who do not strongly profess any faith.
For these Singaporeans, the fact that marriage must involve a union between a man and a woman goes beyond a legally binding contractual relationship. It is a fundamental belief, a worldview. This sense is so deeply ingrained that they are not only are unable to accept the principle of same-sex marriage. For them, were such marriages to become recognised, they – perhaps paradoxically – would feel that society is not only no longer representative of who they are, but some may even go as far as to feel that it has turned against them. It is secondary that heterosexual norms remain the firm majority. Many will feel a sense of exclusion and victimhood.
As it turns out, this worldview is remarkably pervasive. While I do not have comprehensive data, I have had many conversations over the course of the past few months and I would be willing to venture that a significant majority of Singaporeans – including those in Sengkang, including otherwise liberal-minded spirits, and even including those who are otherwise sympathetic about the repeal of 377A – carry this perspective close to their hearts.
It is important that we do not dismiss this worldview as emanating from an oppressive majority, finally receiving their comeuppance. This is because I actually believe that such sentiments – even if some may argue are seemingly misplaced – are indeed genuine.
When I was a teenager, I took my Christian faith very seriously – to the point where I even harboured ambitions to be a missionary. While I am no longer as zealous today as I was, I can fully empathise with how it is like to hold fast to a set of tenets and beliefs that so completely shape one’s worldview that it would be wholly inconceivable to not expect that challenges to it would not be met with visceral resistance.
To reiterate: this is not a sentiment that is limited to those that are religious. It is one that is accepted by broad segments of Singaporean society, almost to a point where it is regarded as self-evident among these groups. To those within this group, their sense of identity and meaning is as much tied to heteronormativity as those who identify as homosexual tie theirs otherwise. Just as important, threats to these identities affect their behaviours and their welfare.
It is for this reason that I do not see a decision to alter the Constitution as essentially a compromise for merely the sake of political expediency, necessary for the repeal of 377A. Rather, it is the manner by which the state will echo what society, as a whole, believes in.
Prime Minister Lee had explained in his National Day Rally speech that challenges via the judicial system were becoming more insistent, and that we did not wish to go down the dangerous road of judicial activism. He also explained why decisions on the repeal of 377A and – perhaps more importantly, constitutional amendments – should be determined in the legislature. He was articulating, in this specific instance, the principle of de facto parliamentary sovereignty, a notion that others have observed also applies to Singapore.
As Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim has articulated, there may be potential legal lacunae that passing such constitutional amendment may entail. I am also aware that the amendment will continue to discriminate – albeit to a lesser extent – against those who wish to normalise their same-sex relationship, especially in matters of public policy.
This question of jurisprudence – where I am very sympathetic to the views of Ms Lim – is important and a concern. But even accepting this argument, I believe that there remains a strong justification for ensuring that deliberation of matters of broad societal concern occur within the forum designed for such matters, which is this House. I will also explain why I believe that a social institution such as marriage may reasonably be included in a foundational document, such as the Constitution.
Keeping in mind that representative democracy will always be imperfect, it is nevertheless the closest system we have that reasonably aggregates the preferences of our people at large. And in our time, the significant majority of Singaporeans have articulated their preference for a clear reassurance that the institution of marriage be protected.
Could this justify a constitutional amendment then? From my perspective, I do not see why not. Constitutions are live documents, meant – as Thomas Jefferson once said – to serve the present generation. They embody the rights of nature, of society and of government; these are essential principles of constitutional design. Many constitutions embed rights of association. Consequently, I believe it is reasonable that our Singaporean Constitution captures the key institutions that our society cherishes, which includes this cornerstone institution of marriage.
Mr Speaker, as Members of Parliament, I believe that it is paramount that we carry out our duties of representation faithfully, echoing, to the best of our ability, the views of the majority of our constituents, even when this position may differ from what we, individually, may hold. It is in this light that I see a vote in favour of a constitutional amendment that codifies the institution of marriage as a reflection of the conversations I have had with my many diverse constituents on this matter.
Keen observers will nevertheless note that the constitutional amendments that were proposed, however, merely refer to how the legislature may define marriage, leaving the specific definition indeterminate. Should the amendments be more specific then? This is where I depart from those who would go further, those who are asking for a heterosexual definition of marriage be hardcoded into the Constitution. In contrast to the more fundamental notion of the institution of marriage, its definition does not strike me as an unwavering principle that belongs to a constitution. It is therefore appropriate that such a definition be clarified only in subsidiary legislation, subject to change by the people of the contemporary time.
Almost two centuries ago, the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville documented his observations on the then-nascent state of democracy in the United States. He shared his admiration for the democratic project as it unfolded in America. Even so, he pointed out an inherent tension in the power of democratic majority opinion, and in particular, he highlighted what he observed to be the "tyranny of the majority".
Tocqueville did not much propose a resolution to this conundrum, beyond suggesting, like his contemporary, English philosopher John Stuart Mill, that appropriate respect for individualism and liberty could offer a way out of this conundrum. Importantly, these thinkers believed that it was vital for each society to arrive at their own definition of the limits that public opinion would have over individual lives. One could argue that democratic republics, of which Singapore is one, are the practical manifestation of this compromise between individual rights and popular opinion.
We stand, today, at a similar precipice, albeit in our own Little Red Dot. The way I see it, the repeal of section 377A is the way that our society respects these individual rights, while enshrining the institution of marriage within the Constitution is how we respect the values of the majority. Hence, the decision we make today is not solely about a political compromise, as so many have suggested. It is also about striking the balance between the principles of individualism and majoritarianism.
As a republic, we are required to do right by our people – we have it right there in our Pledge, a commitment to "justice and equality". Which is why fundamentally discriminatory laws such as section 377A should no longer be allowed to stand. But at the same time, our commitment to – also in our pledge – "build a democratic society" calls on us to affirm our common values, such as marriage, that make us one united people. That is why I will vote yes to both of these amendments today.
Ms He Ting Ru.
Mr Speaker, like many of us in this House, I am often filled with questions about the type of world we live in, the world that I want my children to inherit from us. I worry about how I can inculcate in them the right values, the right tools to be able to dissect tricky situations and to be able to tell right from wrong, even when the world around you sometimes appears to have gone mad.
Today, my sons are still young, and it will be years yet before they are old enough to understand the topics we are debating and to have their own views on these matters, which touch on the very core of what it means to be humans living together in a society. But I hope that when they are old enough, they will be able to understand and appreciate what I say here today, as it is my contribution to what I hope will be a healthy and positive debate for a more tolerant and accepting nation. These are topics that are fundamental to who we are as individuals, who we are as a society.
And because society is a collection of individuals, this necessarily means that we are people who have different views and ways of looking at things. It comes as no surprise that we have many different viewpoints and that some amongst us do feel extremely passionately about the issues involved. This is a good thing in and as of itself, as it shows that we care deeply about the society we live in.
When the repeal of section 377A and the amendments to the Constitution were first announced, my thoughts were initially clear-cut – this relates to my conscience and it seemed straightforward. Yet, as I listened to friends and residents who shared their thoughts with me on the matter, I realised that there was a wide variety of opinion on the matter, each informed by one's own life experiences, their own social or religious value systems. It would also be impossible to find a position that everyone fully agreed on. But whether they are for or against repeal, one thing was clear to me: that everyone is motivated by the same desire to see Singapore move in the right direction, in the direction of the greater good.
I think it is crucial that we do not lose sight of this, even as we may debate over what this greater good is. This is important because having many different cultures, values or viewpoints is not new to Singapore and it will not be the last time we face an issue that risks our society being increasingly polarised.
But I am reminded that we can face challenges as a nation and can do so soberly in a way that balances the individual's right to hold their own beliefs and practices, with the need to build a cohesive society founded on principles of understanding and acceptance.
It is also not lost on me that I am speaking today not just as an individual, but as a representative of my constituents who have entrusted this privilege to me and my teammates. This is something that we will never take for granted, even as we strive each day to be worthy of that trust.
But Sengkang, like Singapore, is multi-faceted. And as interests and viewpoints are split on section 377A, I believe we need to remind ourselves of the same principles of acceptance and understanding that have helped us build a strong ship that can weather difficult storms.
I believe that we must have empathy and put ourselves in the shoes of those who hold different views from us, and to try our very best to understand where their concerns are coming from. We must approach this difference with respect; it does not do anyone favour to dismiss the other as being hysterical, overblown, or wanting to impose corrupt values on others. We must above all, work to not discriminate against our fellow citizens.
It is this principle that moves me to vote in support of repeal today.
I do not believe that we should have a law in the books that is plainly and obviously discriminatory. It sends a signal that one segment of society is so morally reprehensible that their identity should be considered criminal, even if it is only on paper. It excuses discriminatory behaviour and contradicts the Pledge we take, as citizens of Singapore "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality".
Not repealing section 377A today would be at odds with steps that Singapore is taking to be a fairer and more equitable society for all and will go against the principles behind the Government's welcome announcement that we will finally legislate against discrimination. Many in this House have already mentioned the Government's announcement to introduce anti-discrimination legislation and I believe the repeal of section 377A plays its part in our move towards a more inclusive society.
Some residents and concerned citizens have written to me to express concerns about the repeal of section 377A and the deleterious effect that this will have on the next generation. Having three young and curious children myself, I fully appreciate where this is coming from. And indeed, I often find myself worrying about how to teach them to know right from wrong, and to be able to distinguish between good and bad influences. After all, we cannot completely insulate them from the outside world and our children will be exposed to many different ideas and arguments which we believe are wrong.
Our role as a parent is to educate, to guide them as we think fit and to have a sense of moral values which they can apply to different situations. Yet, our children are also their own people, and we must accept that they too will eventually grow up to have their own views, make their own choices and to deal with the consequences of their actions.
And while it is true that a country's laws do provide some moral guardrails for what is acceptable to society as a whole, history has shown us that in some instances, this has not always been the case. After all, I like to think that if I lived in a time and society where slavery was legal and accepted, I would still teach my children that the very concept of a human owning another human is abhorrent and unacceptable under any circumstances.
Having said all of this, I have also heard and understand the concerns of those who feel that the repeal of section 377A will be a slippery slope to further shifts in policy that they feel are simply unacceptable, or that its repeal will cause deep faults and divisions in society that are irreparable.
I understand and respect their concern. But since as early as 2007, the regard for section 377A as a bad law has been growing. Legal personages, including former Judges of the Court of Appeal and a former Chief Justice, have cast doubt on its constitutionality. Similar arguments have been made in this House before as well. If not, today, the law would likely have been struck down in the near term.
But we must also not mix legality with morality. The repeal rejects a legal framework of discrimination, but parents remain able to educate our children and impart the moral lessons that we want within our household, shaped by our own beliefs and faiths. The concerns relating to the silencing of certain groups are also, I believe, understandable. However, Article 15 of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion in Singapore, specifying that "every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it". This right has been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
And if there should be any proposed amendments to remove or water down the right to religious freedom in Singapore, I will not hesitate to oppose it.
In fact, this approach is similar to thorny moral questions that are handled differently between religions or communities today, yet our laws are secular and do not attempt to enshrine the moral compass of each group. Our laws seek instead, to provide the protection for each community from discriminatory treatment from another. The same principle applies here and the protection of religious freedom will remain a core tenet of our democracy.
With this in mind, I record my concern about the proposed constitutional amendment before us. I appreciate the concern behind its formation. Yet, from a legal perspective, the proposed amendments carve out an area of legislative decision-making and functionally shields it from judicial review. Specifically, the proposed Articles 156(3)(b) and (4) prevent laws and policies relating to the heterosexual definition of marriage from being challenged in Court on the basis of the fundamental liberties provisions in the Constitution.
This causes me some concern. While I can understand and appreciate that the majority of Singaporeans feel that marriage is between a man and woman and share the concern about a judiciary running roughshod over the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, I note that the Singapore Courts have always been conscious of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, giving precedence to the lawmaking function of Parliament and are ever cognisant of not overstepping the line into judicial law-making.
Perhaps in taking fright at the "phantom menace" of judicial activism, we may be losing sight of a more fundamental principle – that the judiciary should be the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation and has an important role in safeguarding the fundamental liberties protected therein. Article 156, while not an ouster clause in the traditional sense, functionally shields legislation from being tested against the protection of fundamental liberties under Part 4 of the Constitution.
This concern goes beyond the present issue and I hope we will not lose sight of the bigger picture. If we were to pass this constitutional amendment today that prevents the Courts from determining the constitutionality of a legislative policy, what would stop a future Parliament from passing discriminatory legislation and then shielding it from judicial oversight?
For example, a future Parliament may decide to pass or entrench laws that prevent the propagation of one's religion and then immunise that from court challenge on the basis of the constitutional protection for religious expression by introducing a carve-out similar to the present amendment as contained in Articles 156(3) and (4).
I would additionally urge empathy when debating and passing the constitutional amendment. While I applaud removing the divisive thorn of section 377A from the body politic, I worry too that the constitutional amendment may continue to advance the divisiveness that we precisely want to combat.
Although I understand and appreciate why the Government has introduced the new Article 156, I find that I must abstain from the amendments proposed to the Constitution due to my concerns relating to the carve-out from judicial oversight.
Finally, the divergent views on section 377A underscore the need for measured dialogue, for opportunities to walk in the shoes of another, to not view fellow Singaporeans as an existential threat and to not underestimate the good sense, resilience and pragmatism of the Singaporean people.
For a pluralistic society like Singapore, it is in walking together, in conversation with each other, all the while cognisant and respectful of our differences that we are able to move forward. Sometimes, legislation is not just the imperfect substitute for society's greater good, it can be a barrier to it.
I note that I have spoken very much in the abstract so far, on principles and ideas. Yet, allow me the liberty to close with a personal anecdote about a boy I grew up with in this part of the world. We moved to different cities in our teens and did not see each other for almost a decade. One day, in our 20s, our paths were fortuitous enough to cross again thousands of miles from home and I remember sitting up late one night, chatting about nothing in particular. I made a throwaway, teasing comment about whether he would take girls to a particular spot to impress them. What followed next was totally unexpected.
He suddenly grew quiet and paused for a long while, looking away. I could see that his mind was racing and he swallowed hard a few times. Finally, he looked at me and said, "You probably don't know this, but I'm gay. I thought a long time about whether to tell you but decided to do so because I think you'd be okay with it."
It was now my turn to be silenced as he started telling me about how a few months ago, he attended his sister's wedding, where he felt compelled to tell lie upon lie to well-meaning relatives asking when it would be his turn to get married. He felt like a total charlatan but overriding this was his greatest fear that he did not want to "bring shame upon his parents".
I will never forget the fear and anguish and the pain in his eyes and I regret that this was not the first, nor the last time I saw these emotions as someone "came out" to me about their sexual orientation – all because they feared condemnation and disgust for who they were. It is a whirlwind of emotions that I will never fully understand and I would not wish this on anyone.
It is a timely reminder that for the vast majority of us, the topics we discuss today are but academic to our personal situation. Yet, to some of our fellow Singaporeans, every moment of their lives is affected by it.
We do not have to condone it nor encourage it, but I hope we can find it within ourselves to try to empathise with them, even just a little bit – that we can find it within ourselves to be able to live and hope and pray that the LGBTI members of our community are able to live without discrimination and fear of being ostracised.
Conversely, those who support the repeal of section 377A or even feel that we should go further should also not attempt to bludgeon their views upon those who are deeply uncomfortable with it and instead try to understand the reasons behind why they feel this way. This will be a start towards better understanding each other and how we can begin to heal any rifts that may have arisen.
After section 377A is repealed, life will go on. Families and spouses who love and value each other and their children will continue to do so. Love and hope can still triumph over anger and mistrust, and we will still open our doors and hearts to our neighbours in the community who need an extra helping hand – like the countless stories of neighbourhood group chats stepping in during the pandemic, the students of our Sengkang schools who came together to make gift cards to show their appreciation for our healthcare heroes in our healthcare facilities and their vaccination centres.
This is what makes us as a nation, as one nation, and I hope we never lose sight of this, nor stop fighting to keep this as our shared future. [Applause.]
Dr Tan Yia Swam.
Mr Speaker, in my view, the proposed amendments are nothing more than stating the current social norms.
I am not a lawyer. Let the lawyers discuss the legal aspects of the implications of such a change. I am not a religious leader. I look to them to lead the future discussions of what their faith finds permissible. I speak to you now, as a doctor and as a mother of boys.
As a doctor, I will treat all patients who come before me equally, regardless of race, language or religion, and – I add – sexual preferences or gender identity. I ask about these only to advise on any impact on their medical care.
As a mother of boys, I want for them a world where they can grow safely in. What does that mean?
Think back to your growing years. It was a time to find oneself – your identity and who you are – and I dare say that there are some adults who are still searching or may never find the answer their whole lives.
We form our identity through multiple factors – our character at birth, be it extro- or introverted, then shaped by family, school and peers. Teenagers explore their sexuality and their gender identity.
In my time, tomboyish girls and effeminate boys were given mocking and even derogatory names. For those of us who were lucky to never be confused as to whether you liked a boy or girl, it was already not easy. We still worried and fussed over whether your crush liked you back, collected red saga seeds, folded hearts from bus tickets and listened to heartbreak songs.
For those who felt an attraction to someone of the same gender, I can only imagine the fear and anxiety – fear that there’s something wrong with you, that your parents will disown you, that your friends will call you a freak. How many have suppressed their feelings and stayed single or went on to have a heterosexual relationship just to fit in? How many are deeply unhappy?
For those who have advocated actively for LGBTQ rights, I applaud their steadfast commitment and bravery. I am glad that one key change will be achieved – the decriminalisation of the homosexual male.
I look to an environment where each person can grow and explore safely.
As I have said in most of my other speeches, education is key – education by the family, by formal schooling and by the various faiths. For those people facing conflicts and stress, there must be safe havens for them to seek fair and balanced counselling without undue influence.
Perhaps the healthcare profession needs to step up and lead this with paediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists who are trained and experienced – professional providers who do not impose their personal views.
In schools, I urge MOE to review the sex education component to ensure that it is based on science and facts, while controversial opinions and trends are clearly stated as such. This will be a guide for parents to use in our own conversations at home with our growing children. To fellow parents, if you, like me, grew up without any knowledge of LGBT terms, let us educate ourselves. What is hetero, homo, pan or asexual? What is trans or cis gender? What is sexual orientation versus sexual identity? Only then we are equipped to guide our children as they grow and explore. This is when we can meaningfully share our personal beliefs, our religious convictions and allow the child to find his or her own way, with love and support.
We fear what we do not know. We react with anger when we are hurt. We are all talking a lot. But are we listening? I am deeply aware of how divisive discussing LGBTs rights is and how society may become fragmented. We are one Singapore, one united people. I urge everyone to stay calm and be kind. The above notwithstanding, I support both amendments.
Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on the substantive matters concerning the Constitution amendment and the repeal of section 377A, let me first make one point that I think has not been made enough.
This is the fact that the debate that we are having yesterday and today in this House is a milestone – a huge milestone – for our evolving democracy. It reflects the political leadership of a government and a parliamentary majority who have resolved to rise to our duty, not abdicate from our responsibilities and find the political courage and gumption to confront the difficult issues head on and do what is right even if there is no political favour to be gained and, indeed, every chance of a political cost to bear.
Once the prospects of the Courts striking down section 377A in a future challenge became clear, this Government of the day did not choose to "unsee" what it had seen. The Government did not look the other way. Instead, we sprang into action, put it squarely on the agenda as our duty required us to and set out to find a way forward for all Singaporeans, difficult as it may be.
So, I say – especially to the youths who desire a more robust democracy in Singapore – I say let us celebrate this moment. This is our democracy in action. This is our democracy growing stronger.
I listened to my colleagues yesterday – Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Alex Yam, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Ms Jessica Tan, for example – who hold very strong beliefs on the family unit and want the institution of marriage to be protected and strengthened. Nonetheless, eventually, by the end of their speeches, they have also expressed their strong support for repeal in this debate.
On the other hand, there was Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng, for example, who has been advocating strongly for repeal, indeed, since 2007. Yet, in this debate, eventually, by the end of his speech, he has also expressed strong support for protecting the institution of marriage.
So, very different starting points – repeal on the one hand, protecting the institution of marriage on the other – and a broad tent of views, a broad tent of starting points, even amongst PAP Members of Parliament representing various parts of our society.
Yet, we have found mutual accommodation and we have found convergence in support of both Bills. And we have closed ranks and come together to try and bring all Singaporeans along on the way forward, together, in the national interest, our personal views notwithstanding, as my colleague Mr Murali Pillai has so eloquently put it.
This is how a responsible governing party works. This is our democracy in action.
And I am glad that Opposition Members and Nominated Members have all joined us in seizing this moment. We owe it to Singaporeans to do right by our democracy. We discuss the difficult issues directly, and above all, we stand for unity and compassion as one people.
Mr Speaker, Sir, now, let me get to the substantive matters.
First, on the repeal of section 377A. I will start with a quick story. I once asked two friends – husband and wife, in their 30s, young parents to two kids and we were talking about their expectations of their children. And I asked them, what if their son turns out to be gay, and wishes to bring his partner home to meet them, what would they think? Without missing a beat, they replied to me, they cannot even begin to contemplate and imagine such a scenario.
I do not think they belong to a minority of young parents today. Far from it. Yet, if their son does turn out to be gay, I would make a guess that they will: one, love him all the same; and two, they will certainly not want their son, and his acts of intimacy with his partner, consensual, in private, to be labelled as criminal. Why should their son be labelled a criminal?
This, I think, is the crux of the section 377A issue. Regardless of our views on homosexuality, I think we can generally agree that we know a gay friend or even family member, and we love and respect him like we do any other friend or family member, and we have very little reason, really, to see him as a criminal.
I believe this is the prevailing morality of our society. And because our laws ought to reflect the morality of our society, repealing section 377A and decriminalising gay sex is really the right thing for us to do. I am glad we are doing it.
We could very well stop here. Legislatively, there is no obligation or inevitability that as we decriminalise gay sex, we will also protect the institution of marriage. It is a deliberate act of Parliament, a carefully considered and balanced decision and move, to do both at the same time. And we do it, because we know that taken together, this set of arrangements would be one that our society, as a whole, can probably accept, and it can point a way forward for all of us.
Going back to the story of my two friends, the young parents. Yes, if their son does turn out to be gay, they will certainly not want their son's private activities to be criminal, but I think it will be much less certain if they will accept the notion of a son-in-law, or of a grandchild, or grandchildren, within the context of such a marriage between their son and his gay partner.
And I think they would also completely understand if their friends were to turn to them and say: look, we really will not agree to allowing your son to marry here in Singapore, because it runs against our beliefs and it runs against what we would like our children and grandchildren to believe about marriage, or at least, what we would like our children and grandchildren to see and hear for themselves before forming their own conclusions.
On marriage, I think, this is the prevailing morality of our society, and our laws and policies should also protect this, even as we repeal the law on gay sex.
Indeed, it seems, from a survey conducted by TODAY just two months ago, that younger Singaporeans generally think this way too. Sixty-eight percent view the repeal of 377A positively and at the same time, an almost equal proportion wishes to uphold the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
Let me also say this. Some have commented that where we are today is effectively one step forward and two steps back for the gay community. I have to respectfully disagree. I think this is real progress. Gay sex is decriminalised in Singapore, finally. At the same time, we are coming together as a society and coming to terms with the reality that a majority of us are not yet ready to give up our fundamental beliefs including on marriage and so, let us find a balance, let us find mutual accommodation. This is a mark of our maturing society. This is real progress.
Some, on the other hand, have characterised the repeal as a capitulation by the Government – and society at large – to the relentless campaigns and militant advocacy of some gay rights activists. I think this is quite unfair too. I believe, instead, that this change is about all of us, our society as a whole, maturing, progressing organically.
Change takes time – and this has taken quite some time – but this change has not been precipitated by the narrow words or actions or deeds of a few. I think this change represents part of our broader progress towards becoming a more inclusive society, in various other dimensions like wage level, age, disabilities, mental health and yes, we have become more inclusive on the dimension of sexual orientation, too. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, sir, try to imagine as a parent that one day your son tells you, “Mom and Dad, I am gay. I have a partner. I want to bring him to see you”. What would you say? What would you think?
It may be a difficult problem and I do not wish any parent to go through this test. But, if this is the reality, then I guess that our first response should be that our love for our children remains the same. In addition, we would not wish the son to be considered a criminal because of his sexual orientation.
This second point is the crux of section 377A of the Penal Code. Regardless our attitude towards homosexuality, we would have homosexual friends or even family members in life. Like anyone else, they deserve to be loved and respected. I think we can also agree that we have no reason to regard their sexual life in private as a criminal offence. It is inhumane and unfair. I therefore support the repeal of section 377A. This is what we should do as an inclusive society. This is our duty.
Of course, I fully understand that many Singaporeans are worried about the consequences of repealing section 377A. What will LGBT and gay rights group advocate next?
If the next step after repealing section 377A is to recognise and allow same-sex marriage, what will happen to the norms and core values of our society? These concerns are fundamental and important, and it is precisely because of this that together with repealing section 377A, the Government is also proposing to amend the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage. Yesterday, Minister of State Sun Xueling pointed out that the Government has put in a lot of efforts to address the issue of section 377A and the concerns of various groups in society.
I would like to say is that these two Bills reflect the political courage of a responsible Government and Parliament. Although the section 377A issue is difficult, we did not abdicate from our responsibilities.
There is an ancient saying that “the policies of the country must benefit the people, and the key to political education is for the policies to be implemented smoothly”. The Government has faced the issue squarely and found a compromise. Through these two Bills, the Government has achieved this.
The key to a successful policy is its smooth implementation. This time, the PAP did not lift the Whip. The ruling party’s job is to rule and enable policies to be carried out smoothly, and the ruling party has achieved this.
This is a victory for our democratic system and for all Singaporeans.
(In English): So, where else do we go from here? My hope is that all sides will continue engaging with each other and do so with ever greater depths of mutual respect, understanding and empathy. And it starts with avoiding unhelpful assumptions.
For one, gays and lesbians are not a monolith. Not all homosexuals are judicial activists; and judicial activists do not speak for all homosexuals. At the same time, not all social conservatives are Christian or Muslim. Indeed, many conservatives are either of other religions, or not religious at all. Their socially conservative views, while deep-seated, are not religious in nature.
I also hope that our engagements going forward will be in the real world, offline. Not in social media where certain narratives get amplified much more than others. Social media creates echo chambers and not equally. Some chambers may be small, but their echoes are especially loud and reverberate well beyond the realms of the chambers themselves.
We have Singaporeans who are concerned about how and what social media is buffeting us with, and I think, rightly so. We need safe spaces, in the real world, where all views can come forth and be heard equally, where we can get a good sense of the real balance of views amongst all of us. And in these safe spaces, no one should have to labour under the fear of name-calling or being cancelled, especially by bad actors under the guise of anonymity. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this, I support both Bills.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by highlighting the significance of this debate being held in this House.
The separation of powers is a deeply rooted principle in our parliamentary tradition. Parliament makes the laws, the Executive administers the laws and the Judiciary interprets and applies the laws when disputes are brought before the Courts. In this House, regardless of personal beliefs, we are duty-bound to represent the different voices of Singaporeans. This is a responsibility that I do not take lightly.
Over the past few months, a number of my residence in Cheng San-Seletar have written to me or even come down to my Meet-the-People Sessions to express that, while they do not believe that acts of intimacy between two consenting men should be a crime, they sincerely wish to preserve the definition and institution of family. Others have shared that removing criminality from homosexuality is long overdue, given that the law was introduced back in 1938. Some have also questioned if there is actually a real possibility of 377A being struck out by the Courts, while others have also worried about the wider ripples of this repeal, whether this has potential to change the way that marriage is defined in Singapore or how sexuality education will be taught to their children.
I have also heard stories of gay youths facing discrimination in their friend groups or struggling to find acceptance among peers who do not have the capacity or vocabulary to understand them. And also of youths who hold more conservative beliefs who have been called out in schools.
Sometimes, these disagreements occur online, hidden under the cloak of anonymity which emboldens individuals to speak carelessly. But loud does not always mean right and some may feel pressured into adopting a view. When issues are contentious, tribes are built and positions are entrenched and conversations quickly start from an adversarial place. This environment, if left unchecked, do not allow for people to build the capacity to discuss and debate with respect and reconcile even internal incongruence between faith, heart and mind before coming to their own considered position.
While it may be just one section of law – and about consensual acts in private, no less – section 377A has come to represent much more for many over the years, concerning fundamental values of individuals in a visceral way.
As elected representatives, we value every perspective shared with us. As such, this matter which has been debated in both public and private spaces for many years, even before the 2022 National Day Rally, belongs here in this House after years of consultation and engagement in both public and private spaces – not in the Courts, where judges must make decisions based on the information and facts presented before them, resulting in a binary decision.
Laws and policies must be guided by a careful balancing of the scales, not having the scales tipped to one side or the other through judicial activism or driven by individuals with the resources to litigate. I will not belabour this point as it has been raised by hon colleagues such as Mr Murali Pillai yesterday.
This process of a judiciary intervening actively in social issues may also signal an unwillingness of elected politicians to deal with such issues ourselves and leave such decisions to the Courts so that we do not have to assume responsibility for them. In some countries, judicial activism has deepened polarisation in societies – for example, over immigration matters in Australia and abortion rights in the US.
This also results in judicial appointments in themselves becoming politicised affairs. We should not foster this culture in Singapore and so I agree with the hon Minister for Social and Family Development on the approach of this Bill.
I appreciate that we are dealing with this now. The decision made in 2007 to accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity of keeping the law on the books was the compromise struck by society at the time. Later in 2018, Attorney-General Lucien Wong affirmed the Public Prosecutor would not prosecute two consenting men for having sex in private, giving legal significance to the political compromise struck in 2007.
Former Attorneys-General Walter Woon and VK Rajah also separately said it was not desirable for the Government and Parliament to direct the Attorney-General not to prosecute offences under section 377A. Following these comments, Attorney-General Lucien Wong clarified that the Public Prosecutor retains independence in deciding whether to pursue a case under section 377A. He shared that "while the Public Prosecutor is entitled to consider public policies in exercising his discretion, these do not fetter the exercise of prosecutorial discretion."
In all the feedback I have received, many of our people, regardless of race, language or religion, agree that acts of intimacy between two consenting men do not make them criminals. We have also generally not seen public interest or organised groups for the active enforcement of section 377A. For most, the disagreement lies solely in if it should be repealed.
So, we must ask ourselves, objectively, 15 years on, should we accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity, given that over the last 15 years, there has been little public interest in seeing section 377A enforced? From a legal perspective, it is not quite tenable for us to keep this dead letter law and I support the repeal.
Sir, I have heard the concerns of those who are seeking for the definition of marriage between one man and one woman to be codified in the Constitution. However, the hon Minister for Social and Family Development has elaborated on why such an approach is not the right one for Singapore. For this reason, I can understand the intention of the introduction of Article 156 to the Constitution as part of a package of amendments which strives to reflect a balance – protecting the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenges per the majority views today while leaving space for future generations to make their own decisions based on the contexts of their time.
Sir, societies evolve over time and leaders must proactively respond to the conditions of the day. The Singapore I grew up in is different from the one of my parents and I can also appreciate that the Singapore which my children one day may grow up in could be unrecognisable from my lived experiences.
To do this, while we may choose to educate and guide our families based on our own personal values, we ought to avoid passing down entrenched positions to future generations, especially in our secular shared space. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Ever since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made an announcement about section 377A during National Day Rally 2022, many have been discussing this issue and expressed their support as well as their opposition. Our Malay/Muslim community is not a monolithic community. Each generation has different views, backgrounds, and experiences. In my discussions with organisations and different individuals, I have heard different perspectives. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts with me.
I also had the opportunity to meet leaders, staff, and volunteers from our various Malay/Muslim organisations. In our conversations, many have expressed hope that the family institution will be protected, in addition to the repeal of Section 377A. Some shared their concerns about their ability to manage and support conversations between family members about Section 377A. Others shared their personal struggles to reconcile their faith, mindset and society so that they could impart values to their children that are aligned with their faith and the way they were brought up because it is something that they cherish. Nonetheless, they still believe that any assistance and social services should be given on the basis of compassion and place an importance on the dignity of the individual, regardless of their sexuality.
The tolerance and diversity that we have in Singapore is something that we have nurtured and built over the years. It exists today because the generations before us as well as the current generation agree that it is important for us to seek a compromise in our public spaces where advocacy does not necessarily mean that we need to tear down each other.
(In English): On that note, I would like to finish off my speech to ask not just the Members of this House but Singaporeans at large – where do we go from here, with not just dealing with this repeal but other issues that may divide us?
There are two paths.
The first sees us entrenched in our positions, unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with others who may not see the world the way we do. The second sees us engaging in respectful conversation while remaining steadfast to our own values.
Path 1 leads to division and we have seen the damage this has done in fractured societies. Path 2 leads to understanding and in turn, peace and a more lasting prosperity. It is a path rarely paved and harder fought and uncharted territory for many of us. In moments of crisis, we run the risk of deviating back to Path 1.
In the context of section 377A, we move beyond talking about criminality in the same sentence as homosexuality and see people as individuals for who they are. It is easy to say that we must move beyond tolerance and towards understanding but harder to accept that we can no longer steer clear from speaking on contentious issues.
I ask that we endeavour to not invalidate the lived experiences of others and that we do not fall prey to living in echo chambers.
Singapore is not in a special bubble which makes us immune to these risks and I do believe that our leaders understand that. As a young nation, we have not had as many years to discuss and debate or come to a landing of what we expect of each other as well as an understanding of trade-offs.
I am hopeful that efforts such as Forward Singapore will build up the muscle for society to do so, if done well. Such sessions are an important part of setting up a two-way mode of engagement between the Government and people, where engaging in productive dialogue, varying points of view, becomes the new normal.
In closing, there are many ways to create change. Sometimes, it requires us raising our voices; most times, it requires persistence and tough conversations; and always, it involves time, a big heart and the willingness to hear each other out.
Ultimately, change should not be born out of or led by fear as fear will not protect us. I echo my hon colleague Joan Pereira's sentiments – that we should come from a place of love – and, I will add, also of courage. Knowing that there are diverse groups who feel strongly about this, I hope that we can continue to be brave, to have tough conversations with mutual respect for our fellow Singaporeans.
Mr Abdul Samad.
Mr Speaker, Prime Minister Lee first announced in his National Day Rally Speech in August 2022 that section 377A would be repealed. Since then, this matter has been deeply debated by members of the public as well as Members of this House.
Based on my interactions with my friends, colleagues, union leaders and members, I have gathered that there are sentiments of worry and unhappiness amongst Singaporeans on this topic, despite the many engagement sessions carried out earlier involving various groups of leaders and fellow Singaporeans.
We have heard today and yesterday from more than 20 Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament on this thorny and sensitive subject matter. I am heartened by the passion and conviction of the various speeches by the Members of this house and their commitment to safeguard the natural institution of marriage and family structure, as reiterated by many.
On the other hand, I am also comforted, knowing that we are according the necessary space to those who had previously felt oppressed by the existence of section 377A in our books.
I would like to thank both Minister Masagos for his explanation on the implications of the insertion of a new Article 156 into our Constitution with regards to marriage as well as Minister Shanmugam's explanation on the importance of repealing section 377A in this House instead of being struck down by the Court.
In fact, many in our society may not have known that prior to this announcement, there have been constitutional challenges filed in Court against section 377A on the basis that it violates the Constitution. Prime Minister Lee also mentioned during his National Day Rally Speech that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Law have advised that in a future Court challenge, there is a real risk of section 377A being struck down.
Sir, our union members and fellow workers are also residents of the Members of Parliament here. They, too, shared their concerns with me either in person, over calls, messages or even emails.
I have received emails from multiple individuals and groups calling for the retention of section 377A. This view is commonly held by more conservative and/or religious groups as they are concerned with what the repeal of section 377A represents – that there would be an erosion of family values and the traditional definition that marriage is between a man and woman could be challenged.
There is also another view that the Government should not intervene nor police private and sexual behaviours between consenting adults. Accordingly, it should be removed from our books, especially if the Government would not actively enforce it.
With all being said, I hope the Government can enlighten laypersons like myself on the relevant processes for legislative and policy reforms. Under what circumstances would the Court be empowered to strike down the laws passed by Parliament? What can be done by Parliament to avoid the striking down of the laws? Should the matter be canvassed before Parliament for Parliament to consider repealing the same first? What is the difference between these two processes? Can an infographic illustrate these processes to make it easier for people out there to understand?
Nevertheless, I am glad that this issue is canvassed before us presently, as such a law which has far reaching implications on Singapore’s family structure and societal norms should be decided by Parliament, which has the people’s mandate, and not the Courts, which only interpret and apply the laws passed by Parliament.
At this same juncture, I applaud the Government’s decision of introducing Article 156 into our Constitution. Article 156(2) provides that the Government and public authorities may, in exercising their executive authority, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. This is wholly consistent with what most Singaporeans want – which is to maintain the current family and social norms, where marriage is between a man and a woman, and children are brought up in such a family structure. We hope that the existing measures, such as public housing policies and financial benefits for married couples, as well as education and media policies continue to promote and safeguard the institution of marriage. Sir, I will now speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, our discussions on the repeal of Section 377 and amendments to the National Constitution have gained the attention of our citizens, regardless of race or religion. Many have expressed their concerns about the impact on our way of life if Section 377 is repealed. Sadly, not many people have given equal attention to the Constitutional Amendment through the addition of Article 156 which clarifies and strengthens the definition of marriage and family.
Many are asking whether the Government agrees with the actions of such groups to the point that it acknowledges and gives in to their demands. We are all aware of the emergence of such groups and it is a grave concern for our society, present and future. The repeal can be seen as a minor success for this group. Is it possible that in the future they will continue to make more demands based on equal rights for all in society? Will the Government also support and allow the same thing, just as it does now?
There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns, but we must accept that the world belongs to all of creation including humans, fauna, mountains, flora and countless others. This group of people are also human beings just like us. We should rightfully share the vastness of this world with all of God's creations. Let us not alienate them, just because of their sexual preferences. Let us spread kindness to all humankind and recognise the challenges that they face. They never asked to be that way, but we who claim to be of sound mind and body should take up the role of advising and sharing with them the natural state of life.
Let us cultivate respect, instead of being judgmental, based on our own different opinions, positions, and beliefs. We must avoid spreading slanders that can divide our society. The harmonious cohesion that we built over the years that is founded on mutual respect must be maintained and strengthened. United we stand, divided we fall!
(In English): Sir, I am sure that the repeal of section 377A will bring some form of relief and comfort to those who have previously felt oppressed by the same – in knowing that our societal norms have shifted and we, as a society, are ready to accept and grant them the space needed.
In my personal view, the Government has arrived at a nice balance – granting homosexuals the space that they need through the repeal, while recognising and upholding the traditional definition of marriage through the constitutional amendments.
In closing, I echo what our Prime Minster said at the National Day Rally that we must maintain the mutual respect and trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years and stay united as one united people.
I stand by and support the decision to repeal section 377A as well as amendment to the Constitution because Every Human Matters!
I also call on fellow workers and employers to treat every worker equally regardless of their gender, because Every Worker Matters!
Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past few months, the Government has consulted extensively with various groups on this important issue.
I have met Malay/Muslim religious leaders, Malay/Muslim organisations, interfaith groups, youth groups, and healthcare professionals during those engagement sessions. Participants shared their honest and candid feedback.
The majority in our society, including the Malay/Muslim community, value and wish to uphold the traditional view of family, where marriage is between a man and a woman, with children raised in such a family setting.
The Government is fully supportive of this. Our position on marriage and family is clear, and this has consistently been reflected in our policies and legislation. The conventional definition of marriage is set out in our laws – in the Women’s Charter and the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). Many of Singapore’s policies are based on that definition, including adoption, housing, education, and media.
With the Constitutional amendment, the Government is taking steps to protect the definition of marriage and related laws and policies from constitutional challenges. This would ensure that any changes to the definition of marriage can only be debated and decided through Parliament, and not through the Courts.
If we look at the various challenges mounted against Section 377A over the years, we can expect similar challenges to the definition of marriage and laws and policies based on this definition.
Such decisions should not be left to the Courts to decide. During Prime Minister’s National Day Rally speech, he made it clear that judges have neither the expertise nor the mandate to address political questions, nor rule on social norms and values. Minister Masagos had also earlier in his speech highlighted US and India as examples of why Court-led decisions could lead to undesirable, win-lose outcomes for society.
If we do not take action to protect the institution of marriage, and allow this to be left to the Courts, we risk damaging the bedrock of society which is the structure of family.
Where important social issues are concerned, Parliament is more suited to deal with them. Parliament can consult different groups, take in their feedback, and assess the best way forward while balancing wider societal considerations. In essence, the making of pro-family laws should be decided by Parliament; not by the Courts.
I have shared a gist of the above in my various engagements with the Malay/Muslim community and most of them understood and welcomed this.
As Minister Shanmugam explained in his speech, we are also moving to repeal Section 377A.
During my engagements, some, including those in the Malay/Muslim community, shared they were concerned that the repeal would signal a sea of change in other laws and policies, and result in a sudden shift of the tone of our society.
Some also shared their fears – that the repeal of Section 377A would open the floodgates for same-sex marriage and same-sex family formation, normalising LGBT discourse in our society, and lead to knock-on effects pertaining to sex education in schools, normalising the portrayal of LGBT relationships in the media, and so on.
I would like to reassure the community that there will be no change to the Government’s position on marriage and family.
The Government has no plans to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages. Similarly, policies relying on the current definition of marriage will remain unchanged. This has also been echoed by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong that this Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor the policies that rely on this definition.
You may ask, “why repeal Section 377A now?” Allow me to briefly explain why the Government has decided to repeal Section 377A and protect the definition of marriage.
First, repealing Section 377A is the right and principled thing to do.
Fundamentally, there are no law-and-order concerns arising from consensual, adult homosexual conduct in private.
Society has changed since Parliament last debated Section 377A in 2007. In 2007, our society was not yet ready, but our engagements over the past few months have shown that most Singaporeans today accept that sex between men should not be a crime.
Even if we may be personally opposed to homosexual conduct, we should recognise that Section 377A as a law has been a marker of stigmatisation to those in the gay community, and experienced as a stark reminder of their rejection by the rest of society. Removing this source of psychological and physical distress from their lives is the right thing to do, so we can move forward as a society where our gay family, friends, and colleagues are treated with the same degree of respect.
Second, as Minister Shanmugam has explained earlier, there is a significant risk of Section 377A being struck down by the Courts, on the grounds that it breaches the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Third, if Section 377A were to be struck down by the Courts, our definition of marriage and related laws and policies would be subjected to similar legal challenges.
Taken together, the Constitutional amendment and the repeal of Section 377A reflect the approach that the Government is taking to prevent the definition of marriage from being overturned by the Courts, while doing the right thing and maintaining unity and social cohesion.
Earlier I mentioned some of the key concerns raised by the Malay/Muslim community with regards to the repeal of Section 377A and the possible implications. I also made clear that there will be no change to the various laws and policies related to marriage as it is not the Government's intention to cause a destabilising shift in our society.
Let me address some of the feedback the Government has received from our engagement sessions.
First, I understand that the Malay/Muslim community wishes to protect longstanding religious and family values.
Regarding this, I would like to refer to the Mufti's recent religious guidance concerning LGBT matters. Mufti clarified that in Islam, only sexual relations between a husband and wife is permitted. I agree this should continue to be protected and promoted.
At the same time, Mufti also acknowledged that we live in a diverse society where we ought to respect differences in worldviews and that we should continue to extend compassion to Muslims who identify as LGBT. As Muslims, we must exercise kindness and empathy to our fellow Muslims who might have differences in opinions and views from us.
Second, some are concerned that the push for LGBT rights would infringe on religious freedom.
I would like to clarify that the repeal will not affect the religious freedom of the Malay/Muslim community which will continue to be constitutionally protected.
Malay/Muslim community leaders and asatizah can continue to preach freely on Islamic beliefs about homosexuality, including doing so online to engage more youths on the matter, as long as it is done respectfully, and does not cross redlines of inciting violence or hate towards others. The community should also take reference from Mufti's guidance.
More importantly, I would like to emphasise that religious freedom must be balanced with mutual accommodation, respect and compassion in our plural society. This is essential to maintaining social cohesion.
Where sensitive issues are concerned, people are free to disagree with one another, and we should have the space to air views and concerns.
But even so, as we navigate these differences in worldviews, we must remember to abide by principles of mutual, understanding, respect and accommodation in these interactions so that we are able to have constructive conversations on how we can move our society forward.
In an earlier interview, Mufti commented that the repeal of Section 377A was a complex social issue and a tough balancing act for everyone, including the Government and religious groups.
As a community, we must continue to be guided by Islamic values and teachings in all that we say and do, even as laws change. We have to be careful not to polarize debate on this issue and risk straining the communal ties that we have built up painstakingly over the years.
As Muslim leaders, we should not focus on our own personal views and appeal to our own community only. Instead, we should fully consider what is best for our community by considering and balancing the views of all Singaporeans. This will ensure that we adopt a holistic view and approach to enable us to move forward together.
In line with what Mufti has stated, although homosexuality is a sin, the community should not reject or ostracise them. We should remain principled and balanced even though we have different views and look at what is best for the society as a whole.
This is why the Government supports both the repeal of Section 377A and the amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage.
As we move forward, I would like to call on everyone to keep calm and exercise moderation as we work out a consensus for the betterment of Singapore, as one united society, as we have always done.
I would also like to thank our community leaders and colleagues for sharing their views and giving their support to the Government in this matter. We heard their views and opinions, and we will continue to work closely with them in this matter.
I am touched with their readiness to continue strengthening our nation-building ecosystem despite facing complex issues from time to time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Louis Ng.
Sir, the repeal of section 377A holds great significance for many across the social and religious spectrum. The heated civic discourse and vigorous advocacy speaks to strongly held beliefs that many hold on this issue.
This has been an opportunity for Singaporeans to learn to disagree in a spirited but civil way. I believe that such open debate is a sign of a healthy and functioning democracy. However, in doing so we cannot lose sight of our shared humanity.
I can do no better than quote MUIS. In response to the repeal of section 377A, it said that Muslim law "places importance on human dignity, respect and peaceful relations". It further said, "These values are crucial as we navigate complex socio-religious issues today. As Muslims, we should treat everyone with full dignity and respect. Everyone, regardless of their sexual orientations, must feel safe in our society and institutions. Muslims should uphold the best of character, charity and compassion, in dealing with others, even with whom we disagree".
I believe these statements apply not just to those of the Muslim faith but to all of us. As we continue to engage on discrimination against the gay community and discrimination of any form, I hope we continue to treat each other with dignity, respect and kindness.
In doing so, we cannot shy away from having conversations with people that we do not identify with. We need to continue the dialogue on issues affecting the gay community with the intent of achieving progress for everyone.
For the gay community, the repeal of section 377A is the correct thing to do. It is the correct thing to do not only because of the likelihood of success of any Court challenges. It is the correct thing to do because gay Singaporeans deserve, like any other member of society, not to be criminalised for their private behaviour.
The repeal of section 377A is a positive step towards making Singapore a more equal and inclusive society. We should recognise and thank the collective efforts of activists and organisations over the years to raise awareness about the challenges that the gay community faces and foster acceptance of gay individuals within our society. We need to continue to have conversations about these issues as our nation progresses.
Sir, I have three points of clarifications on both Bills.
My first point is on the treatment of prior convictions under section 377A. In his National Day Rally speech, when he announced the intended repeal of section 377A, Prime Minister Lee said he believed that the repeal is the right thing to do and that it would provide relief to gay Singaporeans.
Minister Shanmugam has also said that it would be wrong to continue criminalising the sexuality of gay Singaporeans and what they do in private. Nobody, he said, deserves to be stigmatised because of their sexual orientation, so repealing section 377A and removing their pain is the right thing to do.
If the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans is wrong, then the continued stigmatisation of gay Singaporeans because of their record of conviction under section 377A must also be wrong.
Under the Registration of Criminals Act, an offence under section 377A is a registrable crime. Any criminal record of a conviction under section 377A will become spent after a crime-free period of five years. An exception is if the person is disqualified from having their criminal record being spent.
As such, this may mean that individuals with existing records of conviction under section 377A because the conviction was within a five-year period or because the individual is disqualified from having the record becoming spent. These individuals may, due to their records, remain stigmatised, even as we repeal section 377A.
Can the Minister clarify if there are any individuals with existing records of convictions under section 377A that have not been spent? Can the Minister clarify how these prior convictions will be treated?
My second point is about support provided to students of diverse genders. The repeal of section 377A sends a strong message against the discrimination of gay Singaporeans on the basis, again, of their private behaviour. As Minister Shanmugam shared, this legislative step is a significant step in removing stigma on a legislative level and will also go some way in removing hurt.
However, discrimination and stigma do not just exist in abstract policies. Many individuals of diverse genders face discrimination, stigma and hurt in their day-to-day interactions in the community and even with their closest loved ones.
These challenges can be especially daunting for young students who are just starting to build their identity and navigate their teenage years which can already be a stressful experience for anyone.
Many surveys, both local and international, show that many individuals of diverse genders experienced symptoms of generalised anxiety disorder. Many also experienced major depressive disorder and engage in self harm.
Our teachers in schools are a first line of defence in identifying students who may be struggling from such stressors and challenges. They are also well placed to facilitate appropriate intervention.
My final point is on the new Article 156(1) in the Constitution. It enables the legislature and the Government to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. In the explanatory statement, examples of such activities included housing preferences and financial benefits for married persons, and education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage.
As we encourage marriage, I hope we will not discriminate against single parents, whether they are unmarried, divorced or widowed.
I am glad that Minister Masagos provided some assurances on this during his opening speech that single parents will not be left behind. Indeed, increased support for single parents is one of the main recommendations in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development, published this year by the Government.
I have raised recommendations on housing policies to ensure that single unwed parents and their children will have a roof over their heads. I have also asked for single unwed parents to receive the Parenthood Tax Rebate, the Working Mothers' Child Relief, and the cash component of the Baby Bonus. It is a whole suite of parenthood policies that exclude and discriminate against single unwed parents. There is a lot more we can do.
Can the Minister confirm that even as the Government takes steps to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage, we will also continue to review our policies to ensure that single unwed parents are adequately supported? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.
Ms Janet Ang.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am mindful that the subject concerns sensitive matters of religious beliefs, sexuality and identity. I stand to speak what I believe and beg the indulgence of everyone who may not necessarily hold the same view.
We all have friends and family who may hold the liberal view or conservative view when it comes to matters concerning sexuality and morality. At the same time, we all have friends and family who are LGBTQ+ persons. The long public debate of the status of section 377A of the Penal Code has weighed heavily on all sides and has divided our society and even families.
To see the cup half full, I would say that during this time, especially since 2018, parties holding differing views have learnt more about one another's perspectives and engaged in dialogues with the Government, and directly or indirectly with one another. The Government has listened and the proposed amendment to the Constitution, along with the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, will soon bring the debate to a legislative closure.
I hope that after today's debate and after this House has decided, we will move forward together as one Singapore, upholding our pledge to be one united people, respecting one another's dignity as human persons and upholding the Singapore family built on marriage between a man and a woman, and the children they will birth and raise, to be the bedrock of our society.
I declare I am a Catholic and have been brought up knowing that my Creator is a loving God and he loves everyone. The catechism of the Catholic Church teaches Catholics that the men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, even as they are called to chastity. Pope Francis, in his encyclical, Amoris Laetitia – The Joy of Love, wrote, and I quote, "We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while 'every sign of unjust discrimination' is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence." The Catholic Church's position is clear – homosexual acts are sinful, but homosexual orientation is not.
The Archbishop of Singapore, His Eminence, Cardinal William Goh, in a statement in August 2022 after the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech on this matter of repealing section 377A, has come out to say that the Church is against the criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people and, so, supporting the repeal of section 377A is not the issue. Rather, the issue is with regard to the rights as a Catholic Church, to teach and practise our beliefs and regard the family and marriage as defined between a man and a woman, according to natural law. As we have all heard over these two days in Parliament, his concerns on this issue matter to more segments than just the Catholic Church.
Several hon Members of Parliament have referred to the Youth Survey conducted in September by the news media, Today. Here is an excerpt from the news report: "The demographically representative survey, which polled 1,000 respondents aged between 18 and 35, was carried out between 5 and 16 September. Almost seven in 10, or 68%, of youths polled said that the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between homosexuals, is positive for inclusivity in Singapore. But when asked if same-sex marriage is wrong, the respondents were generally divided, with 37% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, and 33% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. The remaining said that they were neutral. At the same time, 62% of the respondents felt that it was important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman."
There have been various polls done over time and, while they may not all be statistically significant, I believe they do sufficiently tell the story. First, that Singaporeans are sympathetic towards decriminalising gay sex; two, Singaporeans are divided on the acceptance of same-sex relations; and three, the majority of Singaporeans, both young and old, believe that it is important to uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.
After much prayer, research and listening to many, including my own daughters, repealing section 377A is the right thing to do, and doing so will send a statement to the LGBTQ+ community that they are safe being who they are, even if their behaviour may not be accepted by the mainstream community in Singapore.
Supporting the repeal is not the issue. As many in the House have said, the removal of anti-gay sex laws in some countries saw the issue of same-sex marriage falling under the spotlight and there are large segments in Singapore who care deeply about marriage as defined currently between a man and a woman, as well as family norms, such as how children are brought up and what is taught in school. Most people have come to accept that gay sex is a matter of private individual choice.
Same-sex marriage, however, is effectively changing a social institution, contrary to what most Singaporeans believe and are ready to accept. For me, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, committing fidelity to each other, so long as they both shall live, and bringing forth children to form a family and fulfil the natural order of the transmission of life.
In fact, this Parliament has declared 2022 as the Year of Singapore Families. Singapore families want to be confident that, in Singapore, we will be able to freely guide our children on what we believe to be right and wrong. Likewise, for us Catholics, the Catholic Church needs to be confident that their rights to preach and to teach in the parishes and Catholic schools, according to Catholic beliefs, will be protected. As we have heard in these past two days, the same is true for other religious communities and even for non-religious Singaporeans.
I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to clarify a few points to help address concerns and worries in the minds and hearts of Singaporeans, even as we move to support the repeal of section 377A.
Firstly, with the amendment to the Constitution, are there still circumstances where the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman can be subjected to challenge? What are those circumstances and how will the Government deal with such circumstances?
Second, will the Christian and Catholic Churches be assured that they will continue to be free to preach against gay sexual acts? Cardinal William Goh has spoken of his concerns that we may be drawn into a situation as in the West, where we cannot even say that a same-sex relationship is wrong. For the Catholic Church, this would not be acceptable as the Church must have freedom to continue to teach in the Catholic schools and from the pulpit what we believe, and practise what we teach.
Third, how will MOE handle sexuality education in our schools, both public and private, and assure Singaporeans that Singapore's family and social norms, based on traditional Singaporean values, will be protected? Bullying and cancel culture must not take root in our educational institutions and our society.
Fourth, we should not allow a culture where people of religion are ostracised, attacked for espousing their views or their disagreements with LGBTQ+ viewpoints and vice versa. Singapore has worked hard to create inter-religious harmony in our society. How will the Government protect and safeguard this precious strength and asset of our country?
Let me close by reiterating my desire that after today's Bills are carried, the LGBTQ+ community amongst us will feel reaffirmed that they are safe being who they are, and, together, all of us, as Singaporeans, we will rise above differences in views and beliefs, and respect one another's dignity as human persons. We will work together to prevent cancel culture to take root in our educational institutions, our workplaces and our society.
We will maintain our religious freedom to practise and teach what we believe to be right and wrong. We will uphold Singapore's societal norms where marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that married couples live as role models for their children and children's children. And we will not disregard the importance and essential need to have the holistic family as the bedrock of our society.
And finally, we will continue to dialogue, to listen with compassion and kindness, to one another. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, with hope and trust, I stand in support of the amendment to the Constitution and the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code.
Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Speaker, I welcome the move to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code. For too long, the law has remained in our statutes, explicitly stating that sex between adult men is a crime, even if it is consensual and done in private.
Despite the Government having said multiple times in the past that it will not enforce the colonial era law, and with the Court of Appeal ruling earlier this year that section 377A was unenforceable in its entirety, its existence has very real repercussions that affect many of our fellow Singaporeans, their families and their loved ones.
The topic of this debate is a complex and multi-faceted one, with individuals, including Members of Parliament, holding deep personal convictions. Yet, beyond the Bills and clauses themselves, we must also be cognisant that the issues we are debating have far-reaching effects into the personal lives of our fellow Singaporeans. It is on this note that I wish to touch on some aspects of the lived experience of our LGBTQ+ community in Singapore, which may be less apparent to those of us who are not from within the community.
I am a young father, with a loving and happy family. Section 377A never really bothered me in any way that I live my life. But over the years, I have gotten to know several members of the LGBTQ+ community, some of whom have become my close friends. The daily struggles they face regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity are very real. We all live in a largely heteronormative world. For my LGBTQ+ friends, that means they constantly face subtle judgement, discrimination, apathy and hatred, even towards them at home, at school, in the military and at work.
Seemingly nondescript questions of "bring your girlfriend to drink next time" or "where is your husband?" or "do you plan to have kids" can come up suddenly at family gatherings or happy hour drinks at work and make them squirm. Think about those awkward Chinese New Year conversations that you have with distant relatives at various stages of your life, be it when you are single, married but without children, or even married with one child, and replicate it throughout the rest of the year.
These questions become even more damaging, especially when they are unsure of how others will react to their true sexual orientation or gender identity, and potentially affect their opportunities at work and in society. So, some choose to hide their true selves and avoid talking about who they are dating or their hopes and dreams to lead a stable life. They stay hidden from society. Some choose to be public about it but fear the risk of being punished for their choices by not being considered for promotion at work or being bullied at school. In some form or another, individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ have to cope with additional mental and emotional stress and, in some cases, physical abuse, just for being someone they were born as.
Mr Speaker, it has been well-documented that LGBTQ+ individuals are at a higher risk of depression and mental and physical health dangers. Some suffer from internalised homophobia, where they loathe themselves over a sexual orientation or gender identity that they had no choice over.
A recent NUS public health survey found that among 570 sexual minority young adults aged 18 to 25, 59% had contemplated suicide and 14% had attempted to kill themselves. Having section 377A in our laws means that it is hard to organise support groups to help not just members of the gay community, which is who the laws target, but also the wider LGBTQ+ community, who face discrimination, bullying or mental struggles, just for being who they are.
Schools and companies may think twice about setting up official LGBTQ+ groups, or at least show overt support in counselling and supporting these individuals. Let us not forget the unfortunate incident from earlier this year, where a school counsellor himself presented content discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community, before being suspended from all duties pending investigations. The fact that there remains a legal route for prosecuting LGBTQ+ persons has a specific state-sanctioned chilling effect on the community.
Retaining 377A also makes Singapore look anachronistic, especially in light of our Asian financial hub status. Hong Kong's Legislative Council passed legislation decriminalising homosexual acts in 1991. China repealed similar laws in 1997. Japan briefly made homosexuality illegal and then repealed the law during the Meiji era. Homosexual acts were never a legal issue in Taiwan. India, which also shares similar colonial roots as Singapore, struck the law down in 2018. Having section 377A made it challenging to convince prominent members of the LGBTQ+ community – Singaporean or otherwise – in the arts, financial sector, tech and many other areas to remain in Singapore and make meaningful contributions to our society and economy. The LGBTQ+ community's joy of seeing section 377A repealed would have been even greater if not for the fact that the move merely puts Singapore more in line with other cosmopolitan, open and inclusive societies.
In addition, retaining a law that is not actively enforced or cannot be enforced sends a confusing signal on how one should comprehend Singapore's legal system. It also means that there is always a chance that a future Government may attempt to prosecute a man for sex with another man that was done in private and consensual. That is why I applaud the Government's move to repeal section 377A.
Some will know that my colleague and fellow Sengkang GRC Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim attended a Pink Dot rally this past June in his personal capacity. As shared in a media release for Pink Dot 14, "We are living in an increasingly divided world. The ability to reach across the spaces between us, for dialogue and co-created understanding, is what will keep us safe."
Mr Speaker, the issue of repealing, at its core, is not a political one but one that grants dignity and freedom to a marginalised section of Singapore. I am glad to see that society is, indeed, ready to move on and repeal section 377A. But repealing section 377A does not mean discrimination towards the LGBTQ+ community disappears overnight. Discrimination against such individuals still exists in Hong Kong, China, Japan, India and many other jurisdictions where gay sex is not illegal per se.
On the constitutional amendment that is being proposed, the message that Singapore sends is quite clear: the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman and this is a decision that will be left for the legislature and society to decide, and not by the Courts. For the geographies that I mentioned earlier that have repealed discriminatory same-sex laws, that discrimination still exists is a reminder to us that social acceptance is crucial to any landmark legal or constitutional changes, to maintain harmony and stability in society. As such, I do recognise the importance of the signal the new Article 156 sends, to provide greater protection for the definition of marriage and its related policies today.
After the Prime Minister's announcement at the National Day Rally, MCI said that media policies on homosexuality will remain, which means, as a Toy Story Fan who has enjoyed the entire Toy Story series since 1995, I cannot bring my children to watch Lightyear, a Pixar animated children's film due to "overt homosexual depictions", as though homosexuality is unspeakable and cannot be seen. MOE said that the education curriculum will still be focused on what the majority of society supports, which is family, between a man and a woman. But at the same time, we need to be conscious of LGBTQ+ individuals being invisible in our curriculums.
It will take time for society to come together and, as shared by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, "create conditions for all Singaporeans to succeed and certainly not to feel marginalised", "where we are tolerant of Singaporeans who are different in as far as the law allows." But it is all the more important for us to understand one another's viewpoints, stay civil and respectful as we engage all members of society as Singapore becomes more inclusive and open.
I had the privilege of hearing from one of our LGBTQ+ advocates recently and she is a household name who needs no introduction, Ms Theresa Goh. She shared her incredible journey as a child born with spina bifida, to becoming our first female swimmer at the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games, winning Gold at the 2006 IPC World Swimming Championships and Bronze at the 2016 Paralympic Games. More recently, she has also been elected as one of 10 members of the Singapore National Olympic Council Athletes' Commission.
While we know her for her extraordinary achievements, what is less well known were the struggles she and her family had to go through as a disabled person and a queer woman here in Singapore. What was particularly heart-wrenching to me was hearing her speak so casually about the difficulties her parents had in searching for a kindergarten for her back in the 1990s, as they faced repeated rejections the moment the kindergartens found out that she had a disability. She shared that there was even one day when she was not feeling well and threw up after lunch, yet her teacher did not help to clean her up. But she felt that had she been any other normal child, her teachers would have cleaned her up before her parents came to pick her.
It is upsetting to hear of such experiences, but I also take comfort in that such behaviour would be completely unacceptable and unthinkable in today's circumstances and we, as a society, have moved to become more accepting of the disabled since the 1990s.
Today, however, LGBTQ+ inclusivity remains a frowned-upon topic. As late as 2017, when Theresa shared about how she decided to "come out" in an interview with The Straits Times, she was particularly afraid of how other people would see her and how they would react. At home, she was worried that her parents, in particular, would take this news badly. However, they reassured her that all they want is for her to find somebody who would take care of her, whether that person is a boy or a girl.
While Theresa's story has a happy ending, another close friend of mine is still facing challenges in broaching this topic with his parents. As an only son, he has been extremely filial to his parents and shares a very special bond with them. A number of years ago, he felt that he no longer wanted to hide his sexuality from his parents and wanted to be completely honest with them as he has been with every other aspect of his life. This was not taken very well unfortunately, with his mother feeling distraught that there was something wrong with her son and even prays at the temple regularly with the hope that, one day, he will be "normal" again. I pray that, one day, his parents will accept him fully for who he is.
Mr Speaker, let me draw on what I see in the finance sector where I work. Many financial institutions encourage their employees to bring their true selves to work, because they believe that only then can they truly be engaged in what they do and fully develop their passions. Many banks see being open about being who you are can make for a more productive workforce. They have clear DEI – or diversity, equity and inclusion – talent policies. Incorporating DEI into business operations has proven to benefit companies' performance because it encourages a wider range of views and opinions among staff. All these have clear, measurable impact and should equally apply to our country and economy, too, where we place a very strong emphasis on developing everyone's potential.
A survey by YouGov in May 2022 on behalf of LinkedIn shared that 75% of LGBTQ+ professionals indicated that it is important that they work at a company where they feel comfortable bringing their full selves to work and 49% indicated that they will not work at a company that does not have LGBTQ+ friendly benefits. Similarly, a Deloitte survey of 600 members of the LGBTQ+ community across 12 countries showed that over 70% of the respondents are more inclined to remain with their current employer because of its approach to inclusiveness, while 37% of respondents indicate that they are actively considering changing employers to find one with a more inclusive culture.
Every individual in Singapore should be able to contribute in their fullest capacity without fear of being discriminated against for who they are – be it over race, language, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. Only then can Singapore be truly a global, cosmopolitan, harmonious home that we can all be proud of.
I have a male friend who married his partner of seven years just before the pandemic in New York. The two men are in a loving relationship but there is just one snag – my friend is an only son. When he is old and bedridden, he wants to know that he can trust someone to make difficult medical and legal decisions for him. All they hoped for is that there is at least a jurisdiction out there that can give them societal and legal guarantees that straight couples enjoy. That is why he married his partner, even though he knows that their marriage is not recognised in Singapore. I support the repeal of section 377A and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.
Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Penal Code and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as a mother, community leader and friend, in addition to my role as an elected legislator of this land.
Since the proposed repeal of section 377A was mentioned in the media and the public, I have received several written appeals from my Jalan Kayu residents to urge the Government not to do so. These residents are mostly parents of young children and youths. As a mother, I can relate to their concerns.
In October 2007 when the Parliament undertook a comprehensive review of our Penal Code since its major amendments in 1984, the public feedback on section 377A was emotional. The Cabinet, after extensive public consultations and discussions, concluded at the end of the debate that Singapore society remained conservative and the majority preferred to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values while giving homosexuals the space to live their lives and contribute to society.
As one who has been brought up in a traditional Asian family, I understand Singaporeans who uphold the construct of a family formed by marriage between a man and a woman. This is an important cornerstone of any society since the start and for the continuation of human history.
Why then the need to repeal section 377A now? The Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Shanmugam, gave a detailed explanation. Section 377A was first introduced in 1938, when Singapore was still part of the Straits Settlements and under colonial rule. The origin of the provisions of section 377A stretched even further back to the Victorian times in the 1860s.
Looking at the recent developments in other jurisdictions like India, India's Supreme Court struck down part of the section 377 of their Indian Penal Code, which also criminalised gay sex. It went further to redefine marriage and familial relationships. As recent as in August this year, India's Supreme Court widened the definition of the family institution and ruled that familial relationships, "can also take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships and queer relationships."
To me, what happened in India gives a glimpse of the implications on societal norms when the judiciary branch of the government, which is the courts, instead of the legislative branch of the government, which is the parliament, began to interpret what are social norms, because the legislative branch, that is, the Parliament, avoided dealing with the matter.
As such, I think it is right for this Parliament of Singapore to debate and decide on the risks posed by recent constitutional challenges that our Court is also facing in terms of section 377A in our Penal Code, with the most recent one in just February this year in the case of Tan Seng Kee vs Attorney-General.
As I am not a trained lawyer, I will not dwell further into the legality of this case, which Minister Shanmugam has also explained yesterday. Suffice to say that I am of the view that this Parliament has the duty to set in place constitutional amendments to clarify our definitions of marriage and family.
In this regard, I have also taken careful note, as a community leader, of the wider views, especially among our younger generation, whose views must also be valued. I will not repeat the studies and surveys that several of my fellow hon Parliamentarians have mentioned about the attitudes towards the repeal of section 377A among our younger generation.
I will share that, in a Youth Network dialogue session, which I attended shortly after the National Day Rally this year, almost the full hall of youth audience between the ages of 15 and 35, raised their hands in support of the repeal of section 377A. On further dialogue, I learned that most youths are of the view that a law that will not be enforced is better off removed. I understand the views of the youths.
But what touched me most in that session were a few young adults, who shared that they regretted being too quick to judge and being insensitive in their teenage years when some peers struggled with their sexual identity in their puberty years. With more maturity now, they felt that they could have been more supportive. One even contacted me for opportunities in social service agencies to serve as a counsellor for the homosexual individuals who may be in need, like how we would have helped any other individuals who are in need in Singapore.
As a trusted friend of a few homosexual individuals, some of whom I have known since school days, I have heard their stories of life's challenges, of loss and of regaining of hopes. What they taught me as a friend is the need for human kindness, compassion and love to prevail over judgement and stigmatisation.
As we propose the repeal of section 377A in our Penal Code and amend our Constitution for the Parliament of the day to be able to reflect our majority electorate's values on the definition of families in Singapore, let us do so with always a care for our fellow Singaporeans at heart, no matter how diverse we are.
Mr Speaker, I struggled with my speech for many months, like many hon Parliamentarians who have spoken out in these two days of Debate. In the end, it was the reconciliation of my mind, of the duty I have as a Parliamentarian, and my heart, which holds respect and care for people, that I accept the need for the repeal and the important amendments to our Constitution, which will leave space for us as a people to continue to forge understanding, reconciliation and a future together.
Mr Derrick Goh.
Sir, during the Committee of Supply debate in March this year, I asked the Government to clarify its position on the Court of Appeal's ruling on the constitutional challenge to section 377A of the Penal Code since it was last debated in 2007.
Given proactive steps taken by the Government on stakeholder engagements, including the Minister's explanation yesterday on the historical context of relevant laws, I fully understand the implications of the Court's rulings and judgments. I welcome the Government's clear explanation of the legal risk that the colonial-era 377A faces and the potential domino impact on other parts of our legislation and related policies. I accept Minister Shanmugam's interpretation on this issue.
I also fully agree that it is the responsibility of our Government and this House to address this issue head on. We cannot cop out and pass this uncomfortable duty to the judiciary. Both Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam spoke of the perils of court-led decisions, where the US Supreme Court controversially reversed 50 years of federal abortion rights. The US media noted the chaos brought about by the court judgment to a great nation already split by deep political divide. Singapore cannot afford to take this path.
As the debate on this topic can be divisive, I am glad that our Government has taken accountability and has taken steps to help us navigate this complex matter in an inclusive and transparent way, where views from different segments of our society are heard.
I, too, can attest to this process, where after the National Day Rally Speech, we discussed this issue at Nee Soon's events with our grassroots leaders, residents and religious organisations. We did so in a cool-headed manner and I have to say, the discussions we had with a lot of understanding and empathy. It was way calmer than I earlier expected as this issue is an especially difficult one for all of us to speak on.
This topic affects many in the community who are our friends, relatives and colleagues from both gay and traditional families. While majority of Singaporeans do not want to criminalise sex between gay men, residents I spoke to are concerned whether the repeal of section 377A will lead to an erosion of the protection for marriage, family and children and if the underlying motives of past legal challenges go beyond mere removal of stigma and criminalisation.
I note that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, which safeguards the definition of marriage without tying the hands of future generations, is a balanced approach to allow the Government of the day to consider prevailing societal attitudes.
On this premise, my community at Nee Soon welcomes Prime Minister Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Wong's assurance that the definition of marriage will not change under their watch and the PAP Government's stance on the traditional family as a basic building block of our society will be strengthened while also respecting the dignity and place of gays in our community.
On this point, it is my hope that on this basis, our Government will continue to find ways to further strengthen the structure of marriage and family in our current policies.
Sir, as we debate the repeal of section 377A and the safeguards put in place, we should also be clear of any impact to the way of life as we know in Singapore and the measures necessary to guide the way forward.
As the premise for the repeal of section 377A is that what happens in private should not be criminalised, the concern of the community is that this could be incorrectly viewed as a signal for stronger public advocacy of gay relationships.
We need to remember that the debate will not make this issue any less divisive. We should expect diverse and passionate views from different stakeholders in society to carry on after today. As such, we will need to continue to ensure a safe space for healthy and civil conversations, just as we did over the last many months so that our society evolves peacefully.
On this note, can the Minister explain his thoughts on further mechanisms that the Government will put in place to promote genuine, healthy engagements? Will surveys be done regularly and discussed over national conversations? In some ways, this can guide the discourse moving forward, monitor fault lines and potentially reduce harassment or discrimination of pro-gay groups or those who do not agree with them, especially in secular spaces such as schools and workplaces.
Currently, some multinational companies offer family benefits to their gay staff, like those for traditional couples. Can the Government explain if it supports such arrangements and its position if gay couples were to push for more workplace benefits? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, with regards to section 377A, over the past few months, we have held discussions with grassroots leaders, residents and religious groups at some of our activities in Nee Soon. I have covered their questions in my English speech and look forward to the answers.
More importantly, from the national conversations, we can see that Singapore has gained maturity to discuss sensitive issues and find a balance. I think this is the unique Singapore spirit. I hope that we can continue to seek common ground while preserving differences and make better decisions for our society.
(In English): Sir, in our Singapore Pledge, we committed ourselves to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. For me, this process of stakeholder engagements leading to this debate has, I believe, enabled all of us to better understand what our pledge really means.
Our Government has demonstrated its even-handed approach and the two Bills placed before us are well-balanced and are steps forward in the right direction. It recognises that there is a place for everyone, factoring majority preferences and protecting the dignity of our gay community. We are all together better off.
Singapore has always prided itself as a melting pot of cultures, races and religions. In navigating and not avoiding this issue, we have grown together as a nation and I am confident that we can continue to find strength and harmony in diversity as we continue to write our Singapore story. I support in support of these two Bills.
Miss Rachel Ong.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The announcement of the repeal of section 377A has elicited much response from the ground. Many in this House shared and agreed that this has been a divisive topic. Over the past four months, I have received emails and messages, met in person with residents and members of the public across age groups who are supportive as well as those who are against the repeal.
While most have been respectful in sharing their opinions, I have come to learn of the hostilities some groups carried against those who do not share their views. The vitriol in some manners of speech is of concern to me.
Singapore understands the value of diplomacy and keeping peace with other nations. We do not have the option of being careless with our words or relationships. Diplomacy has been and continues to be key to our progress.
However, it would be futile to work hard on external relationships if our internal relations are weak. A House divided against itself will not stand. Singapore cannot afford a society fractured by toxicity, with one group severing ties with the other simply because we hold different values and opinions.
As Singapore progresses and continues to expose ourselves to global issues and movements, there will only be more opportunities for diverging options to arise in our society. We must ready ourselves. We must work towards a society that can hold difficult conversations where we make room for disagreements and do not force people into a corner of hate. We need to allow many rooms for disagreement but not disharmony.
For this reason, Mr Speaker, I wish to focus my speech on how we can shape Singapore conversations on contentious issues such as the repeal, with a heart set on peace-making, to close the space between us and find the way forward.
Peace by domination and subjugation is not peace. One side prevailing at the expense of the other will break the social compact that is vital for us to be able to live in harmony. Once the compact is broken, repealing section 377A will not be the only divisive issue.
Some view the repeal as rending the moral fabric of society and vice versa.
I take heart by the stated positions of a number of our respected religious leaders earlier in August. Then Archbishop, now Cardinal William Goh spoke of the Roman Catholic Church's neutrality on the repeal, provided that the church continues to have the freedom to teach what it believes and practise what it teaches. Mufti Nazirudin Mohd Nasir spoke of the complexity of the issue. He shared Islam's clear stance on sexuality and marriage and at the same time, the need to respect differences and keep our society cohesive and intact.
What we need to recognise is that the moral and social fabrics of any society are intricately intertwined. One risks being torn as a consequence of the rending of the other. As such, I commend our Government for seeking to protect both the moral and social fabrics of this nation through the proposed Bills. After all, problems are solved in the middle, not at the extremes.
Finding a way forward does not mean we have to hold onto unenforced laws like section 377A, nor does it mean we have to redefine marriage and, consequently, family. Since our families form the foundation of the moral and social fabric of Singapore, we must protect the definition of marriage to avoid more division amongst our people as lines get blurred.
Finding a way forward does mean that people or groups that fall outside the norms of a traditional family are still to be embraced and supported, whether the single parents, singles, widows, widowers or homosexual family members and friends.
As a Member of Parliament, I represent the aspirations of residents from traditional and non-traditional family units and also the rights of my constituents, regardless of their sexual orientation. I hope the decriminalisation of gay sex will bring relief to those who have experienced discrimination. At the same time, those who are heterosexual should also not have to live in fear or be discriminated in their workplaces, schools and communities because they stand neutral or express pro-traditional family views.
It has brought distress to some parents to hear that terms ranging from "cancel them", "bigots" to homophobic, derogatory names are being used in our classrooms against students who do not share the same views on this topic, forcing others into silence.
No one should attack the other and no one should fear being cancelled for holding or expressing pro-homosexual, pro-traditional family views or neutral views. We cannot allow coercion to infringe upon an individual's right to decide on matters of conscience and conviction. This is a right that we must protect through legislation as an open, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society.
Wisdom is found in the ability to get along with others. Just as family members differ from one another, yet still share our lives together, can we, as Singaporeans, define our relational compact to be one of a wider brother- or sisterhood? We can remain honouring of others while disagreeing, respectful without conforming.
Singapore has worked hard to create and build models that have worked well for us – economically, socially and religiously – precisely because we are a pluralistic society. This has been our strength, not a weakness. I am hopeful that we can do the same in the space of affirming heterosexual marriage and family culture, while creating safe social spaces for gay persons.
On the personal front, my feet are firmly rooted in my faith and my arms are wide open. Wide open especially to people who believe differently from me. It is this rootedness that allows me to love and walk alongside those different from me, and to stay interested in their lanes and their realities.
On the repeal, let us remember that our sexual identity, while being an important aspect of our identity, is not the sum total of who we are. If we choose to go deeper into our fuller human identity, we will perhaps find connections that will help us acknowledge and understand one another in our common humanity.
Mr Speaker, my hope is for us to be intentional in sieving out divisive voices in the midst of deep disagreements. Let us not give in to discord nor give up on unity but give our best to our nation. May we then realise our commonalities, close the space between us and, together, discover the Singapore forward.
Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.01 pm until 4.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
Debate resumed.
Minister Shanmugam.
Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bills. Most have expressed support for the repeal of section 377A.
I will deal with questions raised by Members on: (a) our approach towards cancel culture; (b) past section 377A convictions; (c) keeping sex identification in NRICs and passports; (d) Article 156; and one or two other issues.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked for any update on the Government’s plans to deal with "cancel culture" and whether there will be any consultation and feedback process. My Ministry – MinLaw – is looking at measures to deal with the harm caused by cancel campaigns online.
People really ought to be free to stand by their beliefs and express their views, with due respect for the feelings of others without fearing being "cancelled". Many religious groups and organisations, in particular, are very concerned about this. Many church groups have spoken with us. Their experience is that when they express their views, they are shouted down and they feel bullied. Children in schools also feel this. This is not right.
I have said that we will try and do something about this. We are studying the matter. We are consulting different groups as part of our review. We want to try and strike the right balance. It is not an easy area to deal with or legislate on. We will give more details when we get a sense of what is doable.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether there are any individuals with existing conviction records under section 377A and how these records will be dealt with.
There are some individuals with convictions under 377A. Most of these cases involved non-consenting victims or acts against minors, or sexual acts committed in public. These acts continue to be offences, even after any repeal of section 377A. We do take a serious view of them.
Criminal records for offences are dealt with under the framework in the Registration of Criminals Act. And within that framework, people can apply to have their convictions rendered spent. Some of these offences have become automatically spent. Automatic expiry takes place after a period of time for specific offences and where the criteria are met.
Persons who are disqualified from having their conviction automatically spent, can apply to the Police for the record to be considered spent or rendered spent. But where egregious acts were committed, like non-consensual acts or sexual acts against minors, the records are unlikely to be treated as spent.
There are a small number of individuals who were convicted between 1988 and 2007 for consensual, private, homosexual acts, between adults. I have instructed my Ministry to consider how the records of these persons can be rendered spent proactively.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan said that he hopes that the Government will not allow individuals to remove their registered sex from their NRIC or passport. The short answer is that there is no such plan.
Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that there is no real need for Article 156(1) and (2) since the Constitution already vests legislative power in the legislature and the executive authority in the Government. Let me explain. It is a fairly basic point.
Let us take section 377A as an example. It is a law made in the exercise of legislative power by the Parliament. Section 377A has been challenged as being in breach of the Constitution. Ms Lim agrees that section 377A could be unconstitutional. The presence of Article 38 in the Constitution will not help if section 377A is in fact unconstitutional.
To put it another way, the fact that the Parliament can pass laws and that Article 38 gives that power, does not automatically mean that all such laws cannot be challenged. They can be challenged, for example, if they are contrary to the Constitution.
Article 156 is structured to give effect to and protect laws and policies based on the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been drafted in to give effect to this principle, to protect the laws and policies, based on that definition and to make it clear that passing laws and having policies based on the current definition of marriage are constitutionally valid. They give context to Articles 156(3) and (4).
We have been advised by AGC that Articles 156(1) and (2) could be relevant if there are questions raised as to whether regulating marriage and so on are constitutionally valid purposes and considerations for action by the legislature and Government.
Thus, Articles 156(1) and (2) have been enacted to make it clear that the legislature can exercise its legislative power to define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote marriage. Similarly, the Government and public bodies can exercise their executive authority to achieve these ends.
Mr Murali Pillai asked why is it necessary for Articles 156(3) and (4) to exclude the whole of Part 4 instead of just a few Articles.
Let us look at Article 156(3)(a) first. This protects the heterosexual definition of marriage itself from invalidation by Part 4. We need to exclude the whole of Part 4 because we cannot predict what possible arguments might be made against this definition in the future.
With section 377A, we have seen how the arguments in our Courts progressed from equal protection under Article 12 to asserting that sexual conduct is a form of liberty protected by Article 9 or a form of expression protected by Article 14.
Some of these alternative arguments have been accepted by courts in other countries. It is possible that additional creative arguments could be made about the heterosexual definition of marriage. For example, could marriage be a form of association that is protected by Article 14? Members may think it is a little outside of the orthodox interpretation today, but can you rule it out?
Thus, if we want to properly protect the heterosexual definition of marriage from Court challenge, we have to exclude the whole of Part 4.
But it is not a carte blanche. What is protected is quite precise. It is the heterosexual definition of marriage. That is because just as we have been clear about repealing section 377A – we took a clear position – we are equally clear; this Government is very clear – that we will protect the heterosexual marriage as a key institution in our society. That is why the Constitution is being amended.
But let me digress and say, as we say all this, as we listen to the speeches by Members on families, let us also not forget, let us also acknowledge that LGBT persons also have and come from families. They have parents, siblings, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunties, uncles, close friends and much more. So, families are not exclusive to non-LGBT persons. Let us remember and acknowledge that these things are not binary.
Back to Article 156. If the Parliament tries to enact, say, for example, apartheid marriage laws or impose other outlandish definitions of marriage, those laws would not be protected. Because if you look at Articles 156(3)(b) and (4), the operating provisions, they protect the ability of the Parliament and the Government to make the laws and policies.
The protection, the shield is strong, but what is shielded, we have sought to make it quite precise.
If the Government tries to give benefits to married couples, for example, say, with the surname Tan, Article 156 will only protect the part of the policy that relates to married couples. The Government will still have to justify why giving benefits to only people with a certain surname is a relevant consideration. I think lawyers will understand; it will not be accepted as a relevant consideration.
Nor will the Government be able to take measures that are absolutely prohibited under Part 4, for example, slavery. If such a measure is taken, the challenge will not be that it is based on the heterosexual definition of marriage or some other basis, it will be that these measures are not allowed on any basis.
To directly answer Mr Murali Pillai – no, Article 156 does not enable the Government to banish anyone as the term is conventionally understood today. Why do I say that? Let me give an example.
It will be a nice constitutional question if, for example, a same-sex couple were to argue that since Singapore does not recognise same-sex marriages, they had no choice but to emigrate and that is effectively a banishment, and that this Government's policy in not recognising same-sex marriages is therefore in breach of Article 13, which precludes banishment.
So, you can see that a careful person will want to think about the different possibilities of arguments and then make sure that the drafting covers the different possibilities.
We do not believe that the Government's policies and laws are in breach of Article 13 or for that matter any other Article in the Constitution, but Members can see that creative arguments can be made. So, if you want to clear that we want to protect marriage and keep it within the province of the Parliament, then you need to make sure that your drafting is accurate. That is why we have had to draft Article 156 in the way it has been worded.
In the case of executive actions, common law judicial review under administrative law principles will generally still apply. The application of those principles must, however, take Article 156 into account.
For example, with Article 156, acting to promote marriage would not be an unlawful purpose or an irrelevant consideration. But otherwise, administrative law principles can and will still apply.
Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru say that judicial review under Part 4 should be fully available without restriction. Article 156 takes two specific issues out from the Courts' province and keeps them entirely within the province of the elected branches: (a) the heterosexual definition of marriage and (b) the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition.
The Government believes that this is necessary for the reasons I have explained. Parliament and the elected Government should deal with these questions and try and strike the right balance on these complex and delicate social issues.
Ms Lim and Ms He's position would mean that they accept that the Courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage or to curtail the ability of the Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition and for society to live with the consequences after that.
This, then, is the choice before the House today – whether we decide to have the certainty that the Parliament will decide on issues of marriage or whether we want to leave this to the Courts and live with the potential threat of unconstitutionality and have that change imposed on our society, as has happened in other countries.
Let me now turn to the Workers' Party's position on section 377A. Mr Pritam Singh, as Leader of the Opposition, says that the Workers' Party does not take a position on the matter. Thus, as a party, the Workers' Party has no official position. It does not support the repeal of section 377A. It does not quite oppose it either. It also does not support the constitutional amendments to protect marriage.
From their speeches, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim, for example, support the repeal. While Mr Singh supports the constitutional amendments, Ms Lim and Ms He Ting Ru do not support the constitutional amendments. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gerald Giam are against the repeal but support the constitutional amendments. Mr Leon Perera is for the repeal, somewhat more enthusiastically than his Leader, and as for the constitutional amendments, he takes a divergent position from his Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim.
So, the Workers' Party had a debate among themselves. They debated and discussed but did not decide on a party position. The question is – if this is how one decides, how will such a team function if they are in charge?
Mr Pritam Singh said his lifting the whip on Workers' Party Members of Parliament (MPs) was democratic so as to allow for a full and honest representation of all views. This explanation is factually untrue. Every Member of Parliament must know that. So, it does no credit to this House to say these things.
The WP MPs could have made all the speeches they made, even with the whip in place. MPs are always entitled to state their honest views. They can agree. They can disagree. They can say what they think. You can express your views, whatever they are, without having to lift the whip.
I repeat that. The whip does not, and has not, prevented MPs from speaking their minds. MPs have always been free to express what they and their constituents think. The whip is relevant for voting, not speaking; and the whip sets out the party's position.
In moving the Bills, Minister Masagos and I took pains to lay out both sides of the issue. The PAP MPs speaking on the issue, too, have reflected the concerns, the fears and pain of the many individuals they have spoken with. These include views of Singaporeans from different religious groups, LGBT groups and others.
So, do not be mistaken. Views on all sides can, have been and must be fully ventilated and they have been ventilated by PAP MPs.
As I said earlier, the whip is imposed to set out the party's position as a whole. In our Westminster parliamentary system, parties must have a view on the important questions that come before the Parliament. They need to be honest in this House, say what they think is good for Singapore and be accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
The real point is that the Workers' Party as a party does not want to take a stand on this matter. It does not want to be seen as supporting the repeal. At the same time, it also does not want to be seen as opposing the repeal. That way, it hopes to be all things to all men, and not too much of anything to anyone. Members may know the second line was said in respect of a well-known person.
In my remarks yesterday, I reminded Members there are two reasons for repealing section 377A.
First, it is the right thing to do because there are no public concerns that justify private consensual sex between men being a crime. Some disagree with that. They think that the law should be retained as a matter of conscience. I mentioned yesterday that I accept that. We understand and respect these views. These are seriously held views by honest, sincere people, including in this House. They have thought about it, have decided that for reasons of conscience and often of personal faith they cannot agree to the repeal.
But I also outlined a second reason to repeal section 377A – the significant legal risk of it being struck down by the Courts if we were to leave section 377A alone and the significant negative and disruptive consequences for Singaporeans and Singapore if that were to happen. That is a policy question – a question that requires us to consider what is in Singapore's interests.
From the debate, the following points are clear and are not in question, and the WP does not question them. One, section 377A is at risk of being struck out for being unconstitutional. Two, if section 377A is struck out, then, there is a further risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged as well. Three, and that then means that there are risks that our housing, education, media content policies and multiple other policies could all be challenged.
No one has questioned these risks in this House. The WP understands this; there are four lawyers among them in this House, including Ms Lim who has agreed that the legal risks with section 377A, exist. Given that, then what does the WP has a party propose, if you do not want to repeal section 377A and also do not want to support strengthening marriage which we have proposed?
The position with section 377A is like a train approaching. The question is whether we have the courage to act or rather dive for cover to protect yourselves and leave society to face the train wreck.
I emphasised this quite strongly yesterday. Given the risks, we have a responsibility to do our duty as Parliamentarians, to take a position, to deal squarely with the problem and not abdicate our duty. To say the party has no position allows the WP MPs to make speeches supporting all sides without having to make a decision and be held responsible for that decision. That is not true democracy. It is better described as wanting to speak without taking responsibility.
In the context of our debate, their position will mean that they would leave the decision to the Courts and let Singaporeans face the negative consequences, including perpetuating differences and polarising our society further; if we leave this matter to the Courts, because the Courts can only make binary decisions, as we have seen happen elsewhere.
If the WP truly believes that these sensitive matters ought to be decided by the Court, never mind the consequences, including further dividing us in endless rounds of litigation, then they should be honest and say so in this House. The only reason we can have a decision in Parliament is because the PAP has its whip in place. When you stand up and speak at length about the pain and suffering of the LGBT community, then I think one can ask, “Why don’t you take a clear stand and support the repeal?” Or if you believe otherwise, take a stand, oppose the repeal, as a party.
As I say this, Sir, let me tell Members, the issue of conscience which is real, is quite different from the issue of policy. I have focused on the policy issue. And I think it is not too much to ask that a clear stand be taken on policy issues.
Let me end by quoting Winston Churchill: “They are decided only to be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute.”
Sir, this Government has consulted widely and has come to a position. We believe that our policy offers a way forward. It balances the different views, maintains our social cohesion, keeps us together. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong have stated clearly that they will maintain this position. On this difficult matter, we will do our duty and take responsibility for holding society together. [Applause].
Minister Masagos Zulkifli.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for putting forth their perspectives and reasoning on this very important debate. In this House, Members have reflected the complexity of the issue and the diversity of our stakeholders. Something a court process will not achieve. Members have shown why Parliament, rather than the Courts, is the right forum to debate difficult social issues.
We have explained clearly why we must act without delay. Inaction will leave open the significant legal risk that the Court will, at some point in the future, rule section 377A unconstitutional. Parliament has a duty to act.
Let me turn to what we all need to do to keep Singapore united after we have debated and then voted on these Bills. Many Members touched on this in their speeches. Some have voiced the concern of Singapore going down a slippery slope after the repeal. Some touched on support for families with single parents. Others asked about the posture in educational institutions and expressed concerns on religious freedom.
Mr Alex Yam, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Abdul Samad have asked for assurance that the repeal would not result in a change in social norms. Mr Derrick Goh asked about the use of surveys and engagements.
It is indeed the intention of the Government that there should not be a change in social norms following the repeal. This is precisely what Article 156 is intended to achieve. I explained in my speech yesterday, the many different practices and policies that support society’s notion of children within a marriage between a man and a woman.
On surveys, while they can help facilitate conversations and potentially reduce discrimination, we recognise that a single or a series of questions would not fully capture such a complex and emotive matter. It also depends on the survey’s sampling method, whether it is representative and when it was conducted. We have engaged extensively on this matter. There are ongoing efforts to facilitate conversations and civil dialogue.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Mark Chay and Mr Louis Ng said there should be support for other families such as single unwed parents. My opening speech explained our approach. We make a distinction between incentives and support. Benefits intended to support a child’s development and caregiving are given to children of single unwed parents and of married parents equally. These include healthcare and education subsidies, the Government’s First Step grant and co-matching of the Child Development Account, as well as the Government-paid maternity leave to unwed working mothers to care for their infant.
Let me now turn to educational institutions. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman have asked about sexuality education in public and private schools and the madrasahs. Dr Tan Yia Swam said students should be taught based on evidence. Mr Henry Kwek commented that school leaders should take a clear objective stance. Mr Mark Chay asked how we prepare students to be more understanding and empathetic. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about international schools that compel staff or students to participate in gay community projects even if they do not subscribe to the same lifestyle.
I explained in my opening speech that our education policies and curriculum remain anchored on Singapore's prevailing family values and social norms, which most Singaporeans want to uphold. These include the family as the cornerstone of our social fabric, and marriage between a man and a woman. In our schools, all students learn and practise values such as mutual understanding, respect and empathy for everyone. They will also understand that issues can have multiple perspectives and are taught to listen to each other’s points of view, understand the perspective of others and learn to interact and engage respectfully with each other, even if their views differ.
The Sexuality Education Curriculum in MOE schools respects the primary role of parents and reflects the national posture on the heterosexual family as the basic unit of society. The curriculum remains secular and based on research and evidence. It is focused on age appropriateness and the developmental needs of the child when touching on topics such as homosexuality.
In madrasahs, sexuality education is part of their education curriculum and included in specially curated programmes. Madrasahs are also equipped with trained asatizah and teachers to address sexuality issues. Counsellors are available should students need further advice and support. MUIS is in regular consultation and collaboration with the madrasahs to further enhance the sexuality education curriculum for students. Teachers will also be equipped and updated on the current discourse on the matter, to advise and guide students on matters related to sexuality, according to the teachings and traditions of the religion.
For international schools, MOE does not regulate the curriculum. That said, as the schools operate in Singapore, they should respect our social norms and values. They must also be careful not to cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that could be socially divisive, such as how sexual orientation, are handled in laws and public policy. These are matters for Singaporeans to discuss and decide.
Mr Louis Ng asked how LGBT students struggling with family and mental health issues are supported. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked how teachers and educators are supported.
Our schools have a system of support for students with issues concerning their well-being, including on sexuality. Teachers will listen to students objectively to facilitate support, and not discount, disregard or judge their views. They assure confidentiality but explain to students that the disclosed information has to be shared with the appropriate key school personnel to assist students in managing their concerns. Teachers also consult the School Leader and Lead School Counsellor who will further manage these cases, with the school counsellor providing targeted support for the student’s concerns. Where required, schools, will, with parents’ consent, refer students to professionals and relevant authorities to provide counselling support and appropriate intervention.
MOE’s focus is on the students’ well-being. Schools must remain a common and safe space for all students, regardless of their background. We have a duty to care to every student. For students with sexuality issues, our focus is likewise to provide them with a conducive learning environment and the necessary support to ensure their overall well-being. As sexuality issues are complex, schools work with these students and their families sensitively.
Mr Zhulkarnain asked where families can seek help. Family Service Centres offer family counselling and can also assist if family relations are strained because one of them has sexuality concerns.
Lastly, Members Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Darryl David, Ms Janet Ang and Mr Alex Yam have spoken about religious freedom. I would like to make clear the Government’s position.
First, Article 156 will provide further protection for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. There are no plans to change this definition to include same-sex marriages. Religious leaders or any licensed solemniser for that matter, cannot solemnise a same-sex couple. This is against the law.
Second, religious freedom is protected in Article 15 of the Constitution. Every person has the right to profess, propagate and practise his or her own religion, subject to public order, health and morality. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. One can still preach on the pulpit their beliefs about homosexuality or family, even if others might disagree. But no one should incite violence or hate towards others. This is against the law and is not the society we want to become. This is regardless of whether the comments are made in public, online, or in your private space.
Religious organisations, as owners of their premises at places of worship, have the discretion to refuse same-sex solemnisations or weddings to be held on their premises. There is no law which prohibits them from treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples when exercising such rights. Religious organisations may support those who are struggling or have issues with their sexuality, including through prayers and counselling, as long as consent is obtained and criminal thresholds of harm are not crossed.
Third, in exercising religious freedom, we must understand that we are also members of a plural society. We must graciously accommodate those who have different values from us. Gay people are members of our society and have access to the same opportunities and social support as other Singaporeans.
Social Service Agencies (SSAs) provide secular services to the community. Some SSAs are set up by, or affiliated to, religious organisations. All SSAs, regardless of their religious affiliations, serve all clients, including gay persons. Social service professionals are continuously trained to be sensitive to the diverse needs of clients.
Fourth, on employment, workplace and businesses. We do not tolerate discrimination at the workplace. Employees are protected against discrimination under the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). These guidelines require employers to make employment decisions based on merit and not factors irrelevant to the job. For religious organisations, understandably, the potential employee's religion and values would be a relevant consideration for certain roles.
Mr Derrick Goh enquired about staff benefits offered by companies to gay couples. The Government, generally, does not interfere in how a private business operates. However, private businesses must respect that their own staff have a right to their personal beliefs. They also cannot cross the line into advocacy on issues in Singapore that are socially divisive, which include issues on homosexuality. These are matters only for Singaporeans to discuss and decide. At our workplaces, employees should not feel compelled to support causes or participate in activities that do not align with their beliefs. TGFEP is clear that an employee's support or non-support of causes, if not relevant to job performance, cannot be used in employment decisions and performance evaluation.
Lastly, we should keep the marketplace free from the polarising contestation of values. In a free and open economy, with an abundance of choice, businesses can decide what events are allowed on their premises. However, while businesses make their own commercial judgement with regard to their prospective customers, they should do so in a sensitive and respectful manner. Nonetheless, I urge everyone not to use commerce as a platform to display the conviction of their beliefs. In the spirit of mutual respect, I hope businesses and prospective customers can strive to be gracious and adopt the approach of "live and let live".
Mr Speaker, Sir, for complex issues, such as these, we must exercise leadership to make difficult decisions that are best for our society, even if it does not satisfy everyone's wishes. We are a secular Government. And while each of us, as individuals, may have our religious convictions, we take care to ensure that when we make decisions for the whole country, we apply secular, universal values and not individual religious beliefs.
Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Faisal Manap indicated they will not support the repeal because of their religious values. Yet, they do not offer any solution on how we can keep society united and cohesive if section 377A is found to be unconstitutional. Is it their solution to accept a decision by the Courts? What would be the implications? If so, then why not vote for the repeal now?
Ms Hazel Poa says that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) wants the definition of marriage to be decided by national referendum rather than by Parliament. The Government has explained why we are not proposing to hold a referendum on this issue. But let me explain again.
Our Constitution sets a very high bar for the holding of referenda. A referendum is required when sovereignty or the command of our Armed Forces and Police is at stake.
We have only had one referendum in our history – on our merger with Malaysia.
We should be very careful about elevating any matter to this level, saying it is equivalent to an issue on sovereignty.
It is the duty of elected Members of Parliament to consult, discuss and come to a decision even, and perhaps especially, for difficult and polarising social issues.
The PSP says that we should not allow Parliament to decide but, instead, let the definition of marriage be decided by national referendum. This might seem seductive. But let us call it what it is. It is an attempt to avoid taking a position, as Parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people.
Even if a referendum is held, which side will the PSP be on? Would the PSP try to bring people together or stay silent on where it stands on heterosexual marriage, as it is doing in this debate?
Also, would a referendum settle this issue once and for all?
May I remind Members and the PSP what happened in the UK with Brexit. Both sides campaigned vigorously and bitterly. It created and entrenched polarised identities. Brexit was eventually approved, in a referendum, with the slimmest of margins, and people continued to campaign for a second referendum.
In the process, the credibility of the British government was severely damaged. Indeed, it has yet to recover.
Despite being in government, the Tories were split on Brexit. The leadership, rather than uniting around a single position, allowed their members of parliaments and even their ministers to take different views. A government unable to act, cannot govern.
Let us not look for politically easy options and cite referendum as an easy solution, just so that a decision does not have to be made in Parliament. In any case, even if the PSP wants a referendum, does it or does it not support the constitutional amendments?
They seem to be against it. It then leaves the Courts to decide on heterosexual marriage. I have explained why that is not ideal. In any case, PSP seems to be against the constitutional amendment. I have explained why that is not good for Singapore.
Mr Speaker, governing requires us to bring people with different perspectives together to ensure that various segments do not push for a maximalist position which would impinge on others, and pave the way forward. We should especially not adopt positions just because it coincides with our own religious beliefs. Indeed, everyone in Singapore cannot expect their maximalist position to be realised because Singapore is a vastly diverse society.
Singapore has progressed because everyone understands this and has been accommodating of one another.
This applies to governance. To be able to faithfully discharge our duties as leaders, we cannot make decisions that affect our fellow citizens based on personal religious beliefs. Instead, I hope we understand the principles of our religions, in making decisions that affect others. That is what our Malay/Muslim leaders we engaged were able to do after numerous engagements – they went beyond their own perspectives and assessed what is good for the community, Singapore and Singaporeans – and accepted why these changes need to be made.
I hope all Members of this House can do so, too, and support the repeal of section 377A, together with the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
Let me conclude. As a society, we cannot lose sight of mutual respect when we engage with one another and must endeavour to listen to those who disagree with us. We must not destroy their social or economic standing. We should not denigrate others. This applies to all sides in every debate. We should consistently exercise responsibility, restraint and sensitivity to one another, both online and in person.
The work of staying united as one Singapore is what lies ahead of us, even as the debate on these two Bills concludes.
Mr Speaker, this debate proves that this House is, indeed, the right forum for issues and policies that are complex and require political judgement. It is an example of Parliament stepping up to do its duty. It is a responsible Government that has balanced the views expressed by Members and stakeholders and has shown the viable way forward. We did not deflect the matter to the Courts nor kick the can down the road. This is the strength of our system in Singapore when each branch – the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary – does its part to its fullest and does it well and does what is right for Singapore and Singaporeans.
We have had a robust debate. With the passing of the two Bills – the repeal of section 377A and the introduction of the constitutional amendment – we have created space for society to deliberate on social issues within the political process, and not through a legal route which is zero-sum in nature. It is time to come together and move forward. Preserve the peace and stability that our society has fought hard for, and forge ahead – united, not divided – so that we can achieve progress as a nation for many more years to come. [Applause.]
Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister – I refer to Minister Shanmugam – has mischaracterised my speech somewhat. What I said was specific to the party position in 2019 and here, there was a context. The party position, as I mentioned, was varied and divided, with no consensus as to whether section 377A should be repealed – and as I said, somewhat similar to Singapore society.
I lifted the whip and did not fetter the voting rights of Members of Parliament (MPs). I did not say speaking rights. I did not fetter the voting rights of MPs. This is consistent with the party position. What has been the result arising from this debate? Six for the repeal of section 377A; three against, for reasons of conscience.
The party position has now been established by way of a majority in Parliament.
On the Constitution, seven for and two abstentions for the reasons the Members mentioned. All the Workers' Party MPs, apart from Mr Faisal Manap who is down with COVID-19, put their personal positions on the record. And, in my view, they behaved like a loyal Opposition, not loyal to the PAP, but loyal to Singaporeans, knowing the position of Singaporeans outside of this House.
I have two clarifications for the Minister, Mr Speaker.
My first question pertains to an understanding of how and why the PAP chooses to lift the whip for some Bills and not others. And I raise this because the Minister raised it in his closing address.
Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that the PAP did not lift the whip for this debate because section 377A is a matter of public policy. The Prime Minister, in his National Day address this year, said that not everyone is equally accepting of homosexuality and there were considerable reservations within certain religious groups.
For the Human Organ Transplant Bill of 2009, the PAP lifted the whip so that MPs could vote based on their religious and ethical beliefs. The first generation of PAP leaders under Lee Kuan Yew did the same with the Abortion Bill of 1969, where Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself rose to deliver a speech but was absent when it came to voting.
If I follow the Minister's reasoning, would it be correct to say Mr Lee Kuan Yew was abdicating his responsibilities?
There would be compelling reasons to suggest that for both these Bills, public policy could have been deployed as a reason not to lift the whip – but the PAP lifted it anyway. Can the Minister please clarify the consistency or lack of consistency with regard to lifting the whip?
My second question pertains to implications of the constitutional amendments for the LGBTQ+ community in the political context. With these amendments, the effect would be that the Courts are not the correct forum to determine questions of housing policies and same-sex marriage, for example.
At the 2011 General Elections some 11 years ago, the sexual orientation of an Opposition candidate came into the spotlight with the PAP asking the Singapore Democratic Party to "come out of the closet" and the PAP statement on this issue pursued an innuendo that made an allusion to paedophilia.
In view of the speeches made by PAP MPs over the last two days and the call for any change on the definition of marriage to be a political question, can I confirm the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in General Elections?
Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Singh mentioned democracy. He said that in the pursuit of democracy, he will lift the whip. If he now says that is not so, then he can state that for the record. He said, "We are more democratic, we lift the whip". And I just wanted to point out, let us just be accurate.
People can speak their minds even with the whip imposed. And when Mr Singh says the whip will not be imposed on his MPs, he is referring to voting positions. He is referring to a party position, that when he came into the Chamber here yesterday, the party did not have a position. That is what we are talking about.
And his MPs spoke on both sides; the party did not have a position.
It is not a question of totalling up the numbers at the end of the day. It is a question of coming upfront and saying, "This is our position as a party even though individuals have their different views and they will speak about them". That is the point I was addressing.
When will a whip be lifted and when will a whip not be lifted? I made it clear in this case, why is the whip being imposed. It is because it is a policy question with serious consequences for Singaporeans.
If we do not repeal section 377A, then we are saying we will not do what we have to do and we will pass on the buck to the Courts. That is an abdication of responsibility as Parliamentarians.
In such a situation, lifting the whip is not acceptable for the PAP because societal interests are at stake. But where it is purely matters of conscience and you do not quite see such a significant issue for society as a whole, where the very institution of marriage, all your housing policies and your education policies and your rules on the structure and basic content of society can change overnight and where societies get rent asunder by cultural wars, those are the risks we are talking about. Do we duck and say, "Well, you know, we do not have a position"? You are leaving it to the Courts.
Abortion is quite different in that it was a matter of individual conscience, at least at that point in time. I think, today, the issue is well settled in Singapore at least, unlike in some other countries. But at that time, it was a matter that raised very serious personal concerns. People would know the arguments. And, Ireland, much more recently.
I was not in the House at that point in time and I do not think we should draw conclusions from the fact that one or another Member was present or was not present. But I would be careful if I were Mr Singh to bring Mr Lee Kuan Yew into this and suggest that he had somehow acted dishonourably.
If Mr Singh can remind me of his second question?
It was about the LGBTQ question vis-à-vis the PAP's position as to whether the LGBTQ community would not be a victim of some personal attacks.
I think Mr Singh mentioned paedophilia. Again, I do not recall the facts. So, I can only answer in hypotheticals. I think if a paedophile was standing for elections, I am surprised Mr Singh would advocate that cause. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Speaker, let me take up the last point. But before that, sorry, the point of abdication and suggesting that I am saying Mr Lee Kuan Yew was dishonourable. I never used those words. I think I made the point in the context of the question that I put to the Minister.
On the issue of paedophilia, let me share the specific statement that the PAP made which led me to make that point.
This was the statement that was released by the PAP. "What is its agenda? A video has been posted on the Internet showing Vincent Wijeysingha participating at the forum which discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore." I do not think there is a problem with that statement. And thereafter it says, "The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age." The innuendo I think is clear.
In the video, Mr Wijeysingha was introduced as being from the SDP. In addition to other comments, Wijeysingha stated, "I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps, one outcome of today's forum would be for those of us who are interested to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians."
I do not have any issue with the PAP coming up and saying, "Look, what is the political agenda of a candidate?" But what is the relevance of that point on sex with boys, if not to cast aspersions on the candidate himself and to suggest that. Did he make that point? Was this a forum where this was the only issue that was discussed? So, that was intentionally included. That is my view of the statement.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope we do not have to go into an extended discussion on this. Mr Singh started out the second question by saying that paedophilia was talked about. Let me make it clear to him. If there is a candidate who is standing for elections, whether for the PAP – and I hope the PAP will never field such a candidate – or for the Workers' Party or SDP. And if there is a suggestion of paedophilia, I will certainly speak about it and I am sure all right-thinking Singaporeans will speak about it and will say it is not acceptable.
So, I do not quite know the precise context. But as I said in my speech, sexual offences against minors continue to remain serious offences and we take a very serious view. I hope Mr Singh is not suggesting that paedophiles stand for elections and we do not need to talk about it.
As to whether there are broader innuendoes, I think let us get to the point, Mr Singh.
As the Workers' Party trooped into Parliament yesterday, there was one point. And that point is: Mr Singh, Sir, as Leader of the Opposition, was not prepared for his party to take a position. That is what we are talking about; not about an election held in 2011. We are talking about 2022. What is our position on section 377A? And whether we come here prepared to take a position or we are abdicating.
I think I have made my points. We leave it to Singaporeans to judge.
Mr Singh.
Likewise, Mr Speaker, I think I have made my point with regard to what Minister has said. But the issue was not about paedophilia and I agree with him I do not think anybody in Singapore would be thrilled to have a person who is a paedophile standing for elections.
But the question I asked was: what is the PAP's position with regard to LGBTQ+ candidates standing in general elections? I do not think that question has been answered.
It appears to me that, as usual, Mr Singh wants to move the goalpost and start an entirely new debate about who can and who will stand for elections. I am not the Prime Minister or the Secretary-General of the party, but my personal view is that anyone who is not a criminal and who is of good character and of sound mind and who can work for the residents ought to be able to stand for elections. In all of this, in a democracy, it also depends on how people are perceived and accepted in society. All of these are relevant considerations. One has got to look at individual candidates.
But Mr Singh started out by talking about paedophilia. I am sure the records, the Hansard, will show that. And that is why I answered. Because I was shocked that he would even ask that question.
Mr Singh.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, the record will show what the context was with regard to that point on paedophilia. But I accept the Minister's reply to my second question. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Any other questions? Clarifications? Ms Hazel Poa.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to respond to Minister Masagos' comment earlier on PSP's position.
I wish to clarify that our position on wanting the definition of marriage to be determined via a national referendum instead of Parliament is not a convenient way to avoid difficult decisions. A case in point would be the fact that we do have a position on section 377A which is also a difficult one.
We are aware of the Government's position on what the criteria are for holding a referendum. It is just that we have a slightly different view on what are the issues that should go for a referendum.
In this particular case on the issue of the definition of marriage, we feel that this is an issue that is important to many Singaporeans and there is a high level of interest from the public to have a say in this matter. And since it is an area that does not require any specialised knowledge – which would otherwise make it unsuitable for participation from members of the public – and actually, marriage, as many Members have pointed out, is a matter of social norm, we feel that this is an area that is suitable for the public to participate.
I thank the Member for the clarification. But I think the most important question is not the referendum. It is what is the PSP's position on the constitutional amendment. Are they for or against it? And, therefore, when the referendum, if held, are they for or against it?
Okay. As far as the vote for the constitutional amendment is concerned, we will be voting no, because of what I have explained earlier, that we would like the definition of marriage to be via referendum, rather than through Parliament.
Finally, that has come out in the open. So, we know that they are going to support the repeal of section 377A, but they will not support that the amendment to the Constitution be made.
Their position means that while now there would be no further challenges to section 377A because it does not exist, there will now be new challenges that will be put up in Court on constitutional grounds that other institutions, like marriage and families, important to many Singaporeans, will now stand before the Court. And then we are back to square one again. We have to, reactively again, come to make a decision or wait for the Court to make that decision.
We will support a constitutional amendment, if it says that the definition of marriage is to be determined via national referendum.
They will wait for the train to crash on us.
Ms Sylvia Lim.
Thank you, Speaker. I wish to make four points if I may, three are clarifications for the Minister for Home Affairs and one is a clarification on my position on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill.
Let me go to the clarifications for Minister for Home Affairs. Yesterday, during his Second Reading speech, he cited many Court challenges to the constitutionality of section 377A. We are all aware of them. But I do not believe any of the Ministers cited any Court challenges to the heterosexual definition of marriage. So, I would like to ask the Government, whether there has been any Court challenge to the heterosexual definition of marriage. And to that extent, would he not agree with me that his analogy of the oncoming train applies to section 377A, but does not quite apply to the heterosexual definition of marriage?
The second clarification, earlier he mentioned that the Government does not believe that their policies violate the Constitution. I would like to ask him, without Article 156 being enacted, is the Government not confident that it can convince a Court that marriage, based on heterosexual definition, is based on reasonable criteria? It serves the purpose of promoting procreation within a family unit under AMLA, under Women's Charter; and therefore, the Government is on much stronger footing on the constitutionality of the heterosexual definition of marriage, compared to section 377A. That is my belief anyway.
The third clarification is, I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Parliament's laws and Government actions do conform with the Constitution. I would like his confirmation on that.
And lastly, Sir, my clarification for the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, I did say that I am not opposing the Bill, but I am abstaining. And the reason I am abstaining is that I have concern about the role of the Courts having judicial oversight over the legality of Government actions and Parliament. I am concerned that that should be protected. I, for one, value it and that is why I am abstaining.
Can the Member clarify or repeat the third clarification, please? I did not quite get that.
The third clarification is, I would like the Minister to confirm whether he accepts that the Courts have a constitutional role to ensure that Government actions, as well as Parliament's laws, do conform to the Constitution.
So, three questions. One, whether I agree that while there is a more immediate risk on section 377A, that those concerns do not quite apply to the current definition of marriage. No, I do not quite agree. I think what we can see and what we need to take reference from is what has happened elsewhere.
We agree that there is a significant risk to section 377A. There, all of us are agreed.
What is the Government's concern about the current definition of marriage? If you look at what has happened in India. The courts first said that their version, their section 377 was not unconstitutional. And then, within a few years, they said – well, it is unconstitutional. And now, earlier this year, they have said – the definition of marriage should be broader than a purely heterosexual marriage.
This is a similar system and similar broad common law principles. One can say and one can discern that there are different approaches that the Singapore Courts take vis-à-vis the Indian courts. But I think if you were to look at it as a lawyer, legal analysis and, particularly, if you are charged with a heavy responsibility to make sure that Singapore is looked after properly and that you care for Singapore and that your concern is for the well-being of Singaporeans, then you will not take these risks.
You will think them through, whether it is immediate or perhaps it is in the mid-term. If you think that there is a risk, then our duty is to go out there, explain the risks and then say how we would seek to put the laws in place to protect society, protect marriage, protect the institution of marriage and the structure of marriage, so that our society, successful as it has been, can continue to be successful, and so that the fundamental values of Singaporeans can be protected.
It is not a game. You do not take chances. You do not take fine legal analysis. Fine legal analysis is necessary to identify whether there is a risk. Once you identify there is a risk, you then do not go and take chances.
So, if one were to ask, "Is the risk to the heterosexual definition of marriage less than the risk to section 377A?", the answer is yes. But that does not lead to, "Well, we do not have to do anything about it". If there is a risk to something as fundamental as marriage, you act – or at least this Government acts.
Second, do I not believe that the Government can convince the Court that providing for a heterosexual definition of marriage, we can tell the Court it is reasonable to say it should be between a man and a woman. Well, you have seen the arguments elsewhere. You have seen the social policy changes in the United Kingdom, from which many of our laws come. Of course, there, the laws have been changed through parliament, but there are many countries where the laws have been changed through the courts.
I, for one, while I believe that our Courts have always taken the approach, the three great branches of the state, as I said yesterday – the Courts, the Judiciary, Parliament and the Executive – the system has worked well because each has respected the sphere of the other and our Judiciary is independent.
If I were asked, I would say there is a reasonably good likelihood that we will be able to persuade the Court today that there is a basis for making a distinction between same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages, and that the current definition of marriage in the Woman's Charter should be maintained. But if I were asked a different question, "Is there a risk that it could be struck out?", I think it would be either a stupid lawyer or a foolish lawyer who will say there is no risk. If you accept that there is a risk, then, what do you do? What do we do as Parliamentarians? I think the answer is clear.
Third, do I accept that the Courts have a constitutional role? Of course, I accept that. But I think if the question goes towards why do we then say that the Courts should not look at the definition of marriage, I think I have given a very extensive answer. What should count as marriage should be decided here. The Courts can only make binary decisions. We should discuss it, we should decide it and we should take into account what society is ready for and what society needs and what strengthens society. Even if we take a view which is different from the majority view, then it is our duty to go and convince society as to why we are taking that view. We can do all of those things; the Courts cannot do those things.
That is why we have decided there is this risk that the definition of marriage could be challenged and we have decided that is a matter for Parliament. We are not providing for a supermajority. So, any elected Government, by a simple majority, can decide on what a marriage ought to be like.
That is democracy. That is how democracy ought to work.
No Court can do what we did yesterday and today, which is to consider repealing section 377A, but at the same time, strengthening the institution of marriage and explaining the reasons, having it fully discussed, going out to the public and explaining – that is what is necessary. We believe that a future discussion would require these sorts of discussions and it may require changes to more than one piece of legislation.
How does the Court do that? They will decide on the question presented to them and strike out if they think it should be struck out. Where does that leave society?
So, this is not a case of, "Are we avoiding the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts?" It has been explained. I believe the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support us on this constitutional amendment.
The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
After two minutes –
Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
I note that there are Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery. For Members seated there, the Clerk will call your name to indicate your vote.
Members seated within the Bar of the House will vote electronically. They are reminded to be seated at their designated seats.
The Clerk will first call the names of Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery to indicate their votes. These Members are to verbally state their vote indication when their names are called by the Clerk in alphabetical order.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.
Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes.
The manual voting is now completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. These Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink.
Take a vote. You may now begin to vote. May I remind Members to depress your vote button firmly in order to register your vote in the system.
Members seated within the Bar of the House are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens. These results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.
Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly? No.
I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 85 "Ayes"; two "Noes"; and two "Abstentions". The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M].
Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
Third Reading
Third Reading, what day?
Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."
The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 63 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.
After one minute –
Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time."
The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes of the Members at the Speaker's Gallery.
Thereupon, the Clerk read out the names of Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim seated in the Speaker's Gallery, one at a time, for them to indicate their votes.
The manual voting is completed. We will now proceed with the electronic voting for Members seated within the Bar of the House. Again, Members should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrest start to blink.
Take a vote. Once again, do remember to depress the vote button firmly to register your vote in the system.
Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens. These results do not include the votes taken manually from the Members seated in the Speaker's Gallery and the final results are subject to the addition of these votes.
My vote is manually included as well. Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members, apart from myself, who wish to claim that his or her vote has not been recorded correctly? No.
I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 85 "Ayes"; two "Noes"; and two "Abstentions". The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS